Delhi District Court
Judgment Cbi vs K.M. Singh Etc. 1 Cc No. 01/10 on 11 July, 2012
Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 1 CC No. 01/10
IN THE COURT OF SH. VINOD KUMAR : SPECIAL JUDGEII:
CBI: ROHINI COURTS : DELHI
Unique Case ID No. 02404R0257822001
CC NO. 01/10
RC NO. S19/1999/E0001 CBI/SPE/SIUIX/CBI
(NIRANKARI COLONY POST OFFICE)
Central Bureau of Investigation
Versus
1.Krishan Madhwa Singh
S/o Sh.Jai Nath Singh
r/o J130, Sector9, Vijay Nagar, Ghaziabad.
2. Harish Chander
S/o Sh. Attar Singh
r/o 528/4B, Daksha Road, Biswas Nagar,
Shahdara, Delhi32 & C28, East Uttam Nagar, New Delhi.
3. Sohan Pal Sharma @ Panditji
S/o Sh.Deep Chand
r/o D74, Ganga Vihar, Delhi94.
4. Manoj Kumar @ Tinku
S/o Sohan Pal Sharma @ Panditji
r/o D74, Ganga Vihar, Delhi94.
5. Hari Narain Pal @ Neta
S/o Sh. Hari Dutt
r/o R1/14, Nawada Housing Complex, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi59.
6. Sunil Kumar
S/o Sh.Mangal Ram
r/o 56, Pocket1, DDA Janta Flats, Paschim Puri, New Delhi63.
Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 2 CC No. 01/10
7. Sanjeev Kumar @ Kaka
S/o Late Sh. Kundan Lal
r/o BG6, 306A, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi63.
8. Laxman Prasad @ Thakur
S/o Late Sh. Kalpnath Prasad
r/o C120, Street No. 5, Ganga Vihar, Delhi94.
9. Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma
S/o Sh.Kanshi Ram
r/o 492, Naipura Ward No. 7, Loni Town, Near Bus Stand No. 2
Ghaziabad, U.P.
Date of institution of the case : 05.10.2001
Date on which order was reserved : 25.06.2012
Date of decision : 11.07.2012
J U D G M E N T
As per prosecution case, genuine Kisan Vikas Patras (KVPs) were dispatched from Nasik Security Press, Nasik vide invoice No. S KVP239 dated 28.09.1995 by train to Superintendent, Central Stamp Depot, Patna, Bihar. However, during transit by the railways, a large number of the KVPs were stolen from the Railway Yard, Patna by breakopening the wagon. The open short delivery of the KVPs was received by the officials of the CSD, Patna, Bihar and then reported the matter to police authorities at Patna. The particulars of stolen KVPs were circulated by the office of Chief Post Master, General, Patna, Bihar throughout India by issuing circulars and postal authorities were advised to guard against encashment of such KVPs. One Naresh Prasad @ Sadhu was arrested by the CBI in case RC no. 45(E)/98 BS & FC and the cases were registered at Patna vide FIR no. 29/98 dated 24.02.1998 U/s 468/409/420 IPC in GRP Patna and in Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 3 CC No. 01/10 Howrah vide FIR no. 105/98 dated 02.06.1998 U/s 379/411 IPC at Howrah, GRP. These stolen KVPs were sold by accused Naresh Prasad @ Sadhu, Ramesh Kumar Ramania @ Netaji and Mohammad Anwar to various persons. Accused K. M. Singh (A1) & H. N. Pal @ Neta (A5) in pursuance to the said conspiracy procured the stolen KVPs from Afzal Siddiqui and Shahzeda Siddiqui, Lucknow who were based in Lucknow.
2. On receipt of specific information regarding fraudulent payments at Mangol Puri Post Office, Sh.Kadam Singh and Sh. Y. P. Pandey, both ASPOs, after obtaining approval of senior officers, conducted routine checking of the records of the Mangol Puri Post Office. On checking and questioning the then Post Master O. P. Dabas, it was found that huge payments had been made against KVPs which had not been issued from Mangol Puri A Block Post Office. The record was seized and brought to SSPOs Office, Delhi North. On scrutiny of the record, all these KVPs were reported to be stolen/missing as per Missing/Lost circulars. Consequently, a complaint was made by Sh.Alok Pandey; SSPO to Police Station Mangol Puri on 31.07.1998 regarding above referred fraudulent payments from Mangol Puri ABlock Post Office. Accordingly, case was registered at Police Station Mangol Puri on the aforesaid allegations for the offence punishable U/s 120 B/419/420/468/471 IPC vide FIR no. 740/98. Mahinder Mann and Daya Ram were arrested who disclosed the involvement of accused K. M. Singh (A1) and Hari Narain Pal @ Neta (A5) in their disclosure statements. Vide MHA order no. 14036/128/98UTP dated 07.09.1998, this case was transferred to the CBI and accordingly a separate FIR vide RC no. 1(E)/999 was registered in CBI, SIUIX, New Delhi on 08.02.1999. During the course of investigation of this case, offence punishable U/s 467 IPC was also Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 4 CC No. 01/10 added on 25.06.1999. Subsequently, Sec. 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) & Sec 8 of Prevention of Corruption Act was also added. It is alleged that Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma (A9) was posted at Nirankari Colony Post Office as Post Master and was the overall Incharge of the functioning of the said Post Office.
3. It is alleged that accused K. M. Singh (A1) in furtherance of the conspiracy with coaccused Manoj Kumar(A4), Sunil Kumar (A6), Laxman Prasad @ Thakur(A8), Sohan Pal Sharma @ Panditji (A3), Harish Chander(A2), Sanjeev Kumar @ Kaka (A7), Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma (A9) and H. N. Pal @ Neta (A5) forged the stolen KVPs and got them encashed from Nirankari Colony Post Office. Accused Kishan Madhav Singh, H. N. Pal @ Neta and Sohan Pal procured IdentitySlip Booklets, Forms from Lodhi Road Head Post Office, New Delhi110003 through fraudulent means which were used in the encashment of the stolen KVPs. The stolen KVPs were forged to the effect that it appeared that the same were issued from Panipat and Dadri Post Offices and were presented at Nirankari Colony Post office.
4. It is alleged that accused Harish Chander (since expired) asked accused Sohan Pal to contact accused Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma (A9) working as Sub Post Master at Nirankari Colony Post Office and induced him to encash stolen/forged KVPs. Accused Sohan Pal then contacted accused Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma who was his batch mate in the RB Postal Service and he agreed to encash the KVPs on a commission of 20%. Accused K.M. Singh (A1) and H. N. Pal (A5) got prepared round seal/stamps which were used in making forged KVPs with a Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 5 CC No. 01/10 view to show them to have been issued from the concerned post office.
5. It is alleged that Harish Chander (since expired) & H. N. Pal (A5) asked Sunil Kumar (A6) to represent himself as S. C. Jain by impersonating and encash stolen and forged KVPs from Nirankari Colony Post Office. Accused Sunil Kumar (A6) used to hand over the money to accused Harish Chander, H. N. Pal, Sohan Pal Sharma who used to pay him some money for rendering his services. In pursuance of the said conspiracy, accused H. N. Pal (A5) presented himself as Rajesh Kumar went to Nirankari Colony Post Office on 03.12.1996 and presented the KVPs bearing serial no. 31BB006101 to 31BB006120 purportedly to have been issued from Dadri Post Office, Ghaziabad, U.P. vide registration no. 481 dated 18.10.1993 who received Rs.1,42,000/.
6. Pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy, accused H.N.Pal @ Neta impersonating himself as Rajesh Kumar went to Nirankari colony Post Office, Delhi on 3.12.1996 and presented KVPs bearing Sl.no. 31BB006101 to 31BB006120 purported to have been issued from Dadri(Ghaziabad) Post Office, U.P. vide registration no. 481 dated 18.10.1993 to Post Master Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma for payment of Rs.1,42,000/ and he received the said payment.
7. Pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy, accused H.N.Pal @ Neta impersonating himself as Rajesh Kumar went to Nirankari colony Post Office, Delhi on 3.12.1996 and presented KVPs bearing Sl.no. 31BB006121 to 31BB006140 purported to have been issued from Dadri(Ghaziabad) Post Office, U.P. vide registration no. 482 dated 18.10.1993 to Post Master Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 6 CC No. 01/10 Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma for payment of Rs.1,42,000/ and he received the said payment.
8. Pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy, accused H.N.Pal @ Neta impersonating himself as Rajesh Kumar went to Nirankari colony Post Office, Delhi on 10.12.1996 and presented KVPs bearing Sl.no. 31BB006601 to 31BB006620 purported to have been issued from Dadri(Ghaziabad) Post Office, U.P. vide registration no. 476 dated 13.10.1993 to Post Master Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma for payment of Rs.1,42,000/ and he received the said payment.
9. Pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy, accused H.N.Pal @ Neta impersonating himself as Rajesh Kumar went to Nirankari colony Post Office, Delhi on 10.12.1996 and presented KVPs bearing Sl.no. 31BB006621 to 31BB006640 purported to have been issued from Dadri(Ghaziabad) Post Office, U.P. vide registration no. 477 dated 13.10.1993 to Post Master Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma for payment of Rs.1,42,000/ and he received the said payment.
10. Pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy, accused Sanjeev Kumar @ Kaka impersonating himself as Rajesh Kumar went to Nirankari colony Post Office, Delhi on 2.11.1996 and presented KVPs bearing Sl.no. 31BB014261 to 31BB014270 purported to have been issued from Dadri(Ghaziabad) Post Office, U.P. vide registration no. 523 dated 7.11.1993 to Post Master Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma for payment of Rs.71,000/ and he received the said payment.
Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 7 CC No. 01/10
11. Pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy, accused Sanjeev Kumar @ Kaka impersonating himself as Rajesh Kumar went to Nirankari colony Post Office, Delhi on 8.11.1996 and presented KVPs bearing Sl.no. 31BB013187 to 31BB013190 purported to have been issued from Dadri(Ghaziabad) Post Office, U.P. vide registration no. 510 dated 16.10.1993 to Post Master Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma for payment of Rs.28,400/ and he received the said payment.
12. Pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy, accused Sanjeev Kumar @ Kaka impersonating himself as Rajesh Kumar went to Nirankari colony Post Office, Delhi on 20.11.1996 and presented KVPs bearing Sl.no. 31BB013901 to 31BB013910 purported to have been issued from Dadri(Ghaziabad) Post Office, U.P. vide registration no. 515 dated 3.11.1993 to Post Master Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma for payment of Rs.71,000/ and he received the said payment.
13. Pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy, accused Sanjeev Kumar @ Kaka impersonating himself as Rajesh Kumar went to Nirankari colony Post Office, Delhi on 22.11.1996 and presented KVPs bearing Sl.no. 31BB013981 to 31BB014000 purported to have been issued from Dadri(Ghaziabad) Post Office, U.P. vide registration no. 530 dated 5.11.1993 to Post Master Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma for payment of Rs.1,42,000/ and he received the said payment.
14. Pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy, accused Sanjeev Kumar @ Kaka impersonating himself as Rajesh Kumar went to Nirankari colony Post Office, Delhi on 27.11.1996 and presented KVPs bearing Sl.no.
Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 8 CC No. 01/10 31BB006941 to 31BB006960 purported to have been issued from Dadri(Ghaziabad) Post Office, U.P. vide registration no. 508 dated 25.10.1993 to Post Master Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma for payment of Rs.1,42,000/ and he received the said payment.
15. Pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy, accused Sanjeev Kumar @ Kaka impersonating himself as Rajesh Kumar went to Nirankari colony Post Office, Delhi on 27.11.1996 and presented KVPs bearing Sl.no. 31BB006961 to 31BB006980 purported to have been issued from Dadri(Ghaziabad) Post Office, U.P. vide registration no. 509 dated 25.10.1993 to Post Master Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma for payment of Rs.1,42,000/ and he received the said payment.
16. Pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy, accused Sanjeev Kumar @ Kaka impersonating himself as Rajesh Kumar went to Nirankari colony Post Office, Delhi on 4.12.1996 and presented KVPs bearing Sl.no. 31BB006181 to 31BB006200 purported to have been issued from Dadri(Ghaziabad) Post Office, U.P. vide registration no. 485 dated 18.10.1993 to Post Master Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma for payment of Rs.1,42,000/ and he received the said payment.
17. Pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy, accused Sanjeev Kumar @ Kaka impersonating himself as Rajesh Kumar went to Nirankari colony Post Office, Delhi on 11.12.1996 and presented KVPs bearing Sl.no. 31BB006681 to 31BB006700 purported to have been issued from Dadri(Ghaziabad) Post Office, U.P. vide registration no. 480 dated 13.10.1993 to Post Master Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma for payment Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 9 CC No. 01/10 of Rs.1,42,000/ and he received the said payment.
18. Pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy, accused Sanjeev Kumar @ Kaka impersonating himself as Rajesh Kumar went to Nirankari colony Post Office, Delhi on 14.12.1996 and presented KVPs bearing Sl.no. 31BB006701 to 31BB006720 purported to have been issued from Dadri(Ghaziabad) Post Office, U.P. vide registration no. 469 dated 14.10.1993 to Post Master Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma for payment of Rs.1,42,000/ and he received the said payment.
19. Pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy, accused Sanjeev Kumar @ Kaka impersonating himself as Rajesh Kumar went to Nirankari colony Post Office, Delhi on 14.12.1996 and presented KVPs bearing Sl.no. 31BB006721 to 31BB006740 purported to have been issued from Dadri(Ghaziabad) Post Office, U.P. vide registration no. 470 dated 14.10.1993 to Post Master Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma for payment of Rs.1,42,000/ and he received the said payment.
20. Pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy, accused Sanjeev Kumar @ Kaka impersonating himself as Rajesh Kumar went to Nirankari colony Post Office, Delhi on 16.12.1996 and presented KVPs bearing Sl.no. 31BB006801 to 31BB006820 purported to have been issued from Dadri(Ghaziabad) Post Office, U.P. vide registration no. 473 dated 15.10.1993 to Post Master Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma for payment of Rs.1,42,000/ and he received the said payment.
Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 10 CC No. 01/10
21. Pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy, accused Sanjeev Kumar @ Kaka impersonating himself as Rajesh Kumar went to Nirankari colony Post Office, Delhi on 16.12.1996 and presented KVPs bearing Sl.no. 31BB006821 to 31BB006840 purported to have been issued from Dadri(Ghaziabad) Post Office, U.P. vide registration no. 474 dated 15.10.1993 to Post Master Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma for payment of Rs.1,42,000/ and he received the said payment.
22. Pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy, accused Sanjeev Kumar @ Kaka impersonating himself as Rajesh Kumar went to Nirankari colony Post Office, Delhi on 17.12.1996 and presented KVPs bearing Sl.no. 31BB006781 to 31BB006800 purported to have been issued from Dadri(Ghaziabad) Post Office, U.P. vide registration no. 472A dated 14.10.1993 to Post Master Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma for payment of Rs.1,42,000/ and he received the said payment.
23. Pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy, accused Sanjeev Kumar @ Kaka impersonating himself as Rajesh Kumar went to Nirankari colony Post Office, Delhi on 20.12.1996 and presented KVPs bearing Sl.no. 31BB006301 to 31BB006320 purported to have been issued from Dadri(Ghaziabad) Post Office, U.P. vide registration no. 460 dated 9.10.1993 to Post Master Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma for payment of Rs.1,42,000/ and he received the said payment.
24. Pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy, accused Sanjeev Kumar @ Kaka impersonating himself as Rajesh Kumar went to Nirankari colony Post Office, Delhi on 21.12.1996 and presented KVPs bearing Sl.no.
Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 11 CC No. 01/10 31BB006281 to 31BB006300 purported to have been issued from Dadri(Ghaziabad) Post Office, U.P. vide registration no. 459 dated 8.10.1993 to Post Master Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma for payment of Rs.1,42,000/ and he received the said payment.
25. Pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy, accused Sanjeev Kumar @ Kaka impersonating himself as Rajesh Kumar went to Nirankari colony Post Office, Delhi on 21.12.1996 and presented KVPs bearing Sl.no. 31BB006321 to 31BB006340 purported to have been issued from Dadri(Ghaziabad) Post Office, U.P. vide registration no. 461 dated 9.10.1993 to Post Master Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma for payment of Rs.1,42,000/ and he received the said payment.
26. Pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy, accused Sanjeev Kumar @ Kaka impersonating himself as Rajesh Kumar went to Nirankari colony Post Office, Delhi on 21.12.1996 and presented KVPs bearing Sl.no. 31BB006381 to 31BB006400 purported to have been issued from Dadri(Ghaziabad) Post Office, U.P. vide registration no. 464 dated 9.10.1993 to Post Master Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma for payment of Rs.1,42,000/ and he received the said payment.
27. Pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy, accused Sanjeev Kumar @ Kaka impersonating himself as Rajesh Kumar went to Nirankari colony Post Office, Delhi on 23.12.1996 and presented KVPs bearing Sl.no. 31BB006221 to 31BB006240 purported to have been issued from Dadri(Ghaziabad) Post Office, U.P. vide registration no. 456 dated 8.10.1993 to Post Master Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma for payment Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 12 CC No. 01/10 of Rs.1,42,000/ and he received the said payment.
28. Pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy, accused Sanjeev Kumar @ Kaka impersonating himself as Rajesh Kumar went to Nirankari colony Post Office, Delhi on 23.12.1996 and presented KVPs bearing Sl.no. 31BB006261 to 31BB006280 purported to have been issued from Dadri(Ghaziabad) Post Office, U.P. vide registration no. 458 dated 8.10.1993 to Post Master Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma for payment of Rs.1,42,000/ and he received the said payment.
29. Pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy, accused Sanjeev Kumar @ Kaka impersonating himself as Rajesh Kumar went to Nirankari colony Post Office, Delhi on 27.12.1996 and presented KVPs bearing Sl.no. 31BB006401 to 31BB006420 purported to have been issued from Dadri(Ghaziabad) Post Office, U.P. vide registration no. 465 dated 11.10.1993 to Post Master Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma for payment of Rs.1,42,000/ and he received the said payment.
30. Pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy, accused Sanjeev Kumar @ Kaka impersonating himself as Rajesh Kumar went to Nirankari colony Post Office, Delhi on 27.12.1996 and presented KVPs bearing Sl.no. 31BB006421 to 31BB006440 purported to have been issued from Dadri(Ghaziabad) Post Office, U.P. vide registration no. 466 dated 11.10.1993 to Post Master Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma for payment of Rs.1,42,000/ and he received the said payment.
Hence, accused Sanjeev Kumar falsely represented himself as Rajesh Kumar presented a total number of 383 above referred stolen/forged KVPs Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 13 CC No. 01/10 of the face value of Rs.19,50,000/ before accused Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma, the then Post Master, Nirankari Colony Post Office, New Delhi and encashed the same by fraudulent means to the tune of Rs. 27,19,300/ and corresponding loss to the Government of India.
31. Pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy, accused Sunil Kumar impersonating himself as S.C.Jain went to Nirankari colony Post Office, Delhi on 4.2.1997 and presented KVPs bearing Sl.no. 31BB015011 to 31BB015030 purported to have been issued from Panipat City Post Office vide registration no. 722 dated 3.11.1993 to Post Master Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma who made payment of Rs.1,42,000/ to Sunil Kumar. these KVPs were presented along with identity slip no. 402/4302.
32. Pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy, accused Sunil Kumar impersonating himself as S.C.Jain went to Nirankari colony Post Office, Delhi on 4.2.1997 and presented KVPs bearing Sl.no. 31BB015031 to 31BB015050 purported to have been issued from Panipat City Post Office vide registration no. 723 dated 3.11.1993 to Post Master Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma who made payment of Rs.1,42,000/ to Sunil Kumar. These KVPs were presented along with identity slip no. 03/4302.
33. Pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy, accused Sunil Kumar impersonating himself as S.C.Jain went to Nirankari colony Post Office, Delhi on 8.2.1997 and presented KVPs bearing Sl.no. 20CC386301 to 20CC386310 purported to have been issued from Panipat City Post Office vide registration no. 280 dated 16.12.1993 to Post Master Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma who made payment of Rs.1,42,000/ to Sunil Kumar.
Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 14 CC No. 01/10 These KVPs were presented along with identity slip no. 17/2527.
34. Pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy, accused Sunil Kumar impersonating himself as S.C.Jain went to Nirankari colony Post Office, Delhi on 8.2.1997 and presented KVPs bearing Sl.no. 20CC386311 to 20CC386320 purported to have been issued from Panipat City Post Office vide registration no. 281 dated 16.12.1993 to Post Master Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma who made payment of Rs.1,42,000/ to Sunil Kumar. These KVPs were presented along with identity slip no. 18/2527.
35. Pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy, accused Sunil Kumar impersonating himself as S.C.Jain went to Nirankari colony Post Office, Delhi on 11.2.1997 and presented KVPs bearing Sl.no. 20CC386321 to 20CC386325 purported to have been issued from Panipat City Post Office vide registration no. 282 dated 16.12.1993 to Post Master Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma who made payment of Rs.71,000/ to Sunil Kumar. These KVPs were presented along with identity slip no. 19/2527.
36. Pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy, accused Sunil Kumar impersonating himself as S.C.Jain went to Nirankari colony Post Office, Delhi on 15.2.1997 and presented KVPs bearing Sl.no. 20CC386331 to 20CC386335 purported to have been issued from Panipat City Post Office vide registration no. 284 dated 16.12.1993 to Post Master Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma who made payment of Rs.71,000/ to Sunil Kumar. These KVPs were presented along with identity slip no. 21/2527.
37. Pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy, accused Sunil Kumar Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 15 CC No. 01/10 impersonating himself as S.C.Jain went to Nirankari colony Post Office, Delhi on 15.2.1997 and presented KVPs bearing Sl.no. 20CC386336 to 20CC386340 purported to have been issued from Panipat City Post Office vide registration no. 285 dated 16.12.1993 to Post Master Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma who made payment of Rs.71,000/ to Sunil Kumar. These KVPs were presented along with identity slip no. 22/2527.
38. Pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy, accused Sunil Kumar impersonating himself as S.C.Jain went to Nirankari colony Post Office, Delhi on 18.2.1997 and presented KVPs bearing Sl.no. 20CC386341 to 20CC386345 purported to have been issued from Panipat City Post Office vide registration no. 286 dated 16.12.1993 to Post Master Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma who made payment of Rs.71,000/ to Sunil Kumar. These KVPs were presented along with identity slip no. 23/2527.
39. Pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy, accused Sunil Kumar impersonating himself as S.C.Jain went to Nirankari colony Post Office, Delhi on 18.2.1997 and presented KVPs bearing Sl.no. 20CC386346 to 20CC386350 purported to have been issued from Panipat City Post Office vide registration no. 287 dated 16.12.1993 to Post Master Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma who made payment of Rs.71,000/ to Sunil Kumar. These KVPs were presented along with identity slip no. 24/2527.
40. Pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy, accused Sunil Kumar impersonating himself as S.C.Jain went to Nirankari colony Post Office, Delhi on 21.2.1997 and presented KVPs bearing Sl.no. 31BB015051 to 31BB015060 purported to have been issued from Panipat City Post Office Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 16 CC No. 01/10 vide registration no. 703 dated 3.11.1993 to Post Master Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma who made payment of Rs.71,000/ to Sunil Kumar. These KVPs were presented along with identity slip no. 04/4302.
41. Pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy, accused Sunil Kumar impersonating himself as S.C.Jain went to Nirankari colony Post Office, Delhi on 24.2.1997 and presented KVPs bearing Sl.no. 31BB015101 to 31BB015110 purported to have been issued from Panipat City Post Office vide registration no. 708 dated 5.11.1993 to Post Master Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma who made payment of Rs.71,000/ to Sunil Kumar. These KVPs were presented along with identity slip no. 06/4302.
42. Pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy, accused Sunil Kumar impersonating himself as S.C.Jain went to Nirankari colony Post Office, Delhi on 24.2.1997 and presented KVPs bearing Sl.no. 31BB015111 to 31BB015120 purported to have been issued from Panipat City Post Office vide registration no. 709 dated 5.11.1993 to Post Master Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma who made payment of Rs.71,000/ to Sunil Kumar. These KVPs were presented along with identity slip no. 07/4302.
43. Pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy, accused Sunil Kumar impersonating himself as S.C.Jain went to Nirankari colony Post Office, Delhi on 28.2.1997 and presented KVPs bearing Sl.no. 31BB015061 to 31BB015080 purported to have been issued from Panipat City Post Office vide registration no. 704 dated 3.11.1993 to Post Master Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma who made payment of Rs.1,42,000/ to Sunil Kumar. These KVPs were presented along with identity slip no. 05/4302.
Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 17 CC No. 01/10
44. Pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy, accused Sunil Kumar impersonating himself as S.C.Jain went to Nirankari colony Post Office, Delhi on 1.3.1997 and presented KVPs bearing Sl.no. 31BB015121 to 31BB015140 purported to have been issued from Panipat City Post Office vide registration no. 710 dated 5.11.1993 to Post Master Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma who made payment of Rs.71,000/ to Sunil Kumar.
45. Pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy, accused Sunil Kumar impersonating himself as S.C.Jain went to Nirankari colony Post Office, Delhi on 5.3.1997 and presented KVPs bearing Sl.no. 31BB015141 to 31BB015150 purported to have been issued from Panipat City Post Office vide registration no. 711 dated 5.11.1993 to Post Master Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma who made payment of Rs.71,000/ to Sunil Kumar.
46. Pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy, accused Sunil Kumar impersonating himself as S.C.Jain went to Nirankari colony Post Office, Delhi on 5.3.1997 and presented KVPs bearing Sl.no. 31BB015151 to 31BB015170 purported to have been issued from Panipat City Post Office vide registration no. 712 dated 5.11.1993 to Post Master Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma who made payment of Rs.1,42,000/ to Sunil Kumar.
47. Pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy, accused Sunil Kumar impersonating himself as S.C.Jain went to Nirankari colony Post Office, Delhi on 5.3.1997 and presented KVPs bearing Sl.no. 31BB015171 to 31BB015180 purported to have been issued from Panipat City Post Office vide registration no. 713 dated 5.11.1993 to Post Master Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma who made payment of Rs.71,000/ to Sunil Kumar.
Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 18 CC No. 01/10
48. Pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy, accused Sunil Kumar impersonating himself as S.C.Jain went to Nirankari colony Post Office, Delhi on 8.3.1997 and presented KVPs bearing Sl.no. 29BB730201 to 29BB730220 purported to have been issued from Panipat City Post Office vide registration no. 730 dated 16.11.1993 to Post Master Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma who made payment of Rs.1,42,000/ to Sunil Kumar. These KVPs were presented along with identity slip no. 25/2522.
49. Pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy, accused Sunil Kumar impersonating himself as S.C.Jain went to Nirankari colony Post Office, Delhi on 8.3.1997 and presented KVPs bearing Sl.no. 29BB730221 to 29BB730230 purported to have been issued from Panipat City Post Office vide registration no. 731 dated 16.11.1993 to Post Master Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma who made payment of Rs.71,000/ to Sunil Kumar. These KVPs were presented along with identity slip no. 26/2527.
50. Pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy, accused Sunil Kumar impersonating himself as S.C.Jain went to Nirankari colony Post Office, Delhi on 11.3.1997 and presented KVPs bearing Sl.no. 29BB730251 to 29BB730260 purported to have been issued from Panipat City Post Office vide registration no. 733 dated 16.11.1993 to Post Master Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma who made payment of Rs.71,000/ to Sunil Kumar. These KVPs were presented along with identity slip no. 28/2527.
51. Pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy, accused Sunil Kumar impersonating himself as S.C.Jain went to Nirankari colony Post Office, Delhi on 11.3.1997 and presented KVPs bearing Sl.no. 29BB730261 to Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 19 CC No. 01/10 29BB730263 purported to have been issued from Panipat City Post Office vide registration no. 734 dated 16.11.1993 to Post Master Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma who made payment of Rs.21,300/ to Sunil Kumar.
52. Pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy, accused Sunil Kumar impersonating himself as S.C.Jain went to Nirankari colony Post Office, Delhi on 11.3.1997 and presented KVPs bearing Sl.no. 29BB730265 to 29BB730270 purported to have been issued from Panipat City Post Office vide registration no. 734 dated 16.11.1993 to Post Master Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma who made payment of Rs.42,600/ to Sunil Kumar.
53. Pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy, accused Sunil Kumar impersonating himself as S.C.Jain went to Nirankari colony Post Office, Delhi on 15.3.1997 and presented KVPs bearing Sl.no. 29BB730231 to 29BB730250 purported to have been issued from Panipat City Post Office vide registration no. 732 dated 16.11.1993 to Post Master Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma who made payment of Rs.1,42,000/ to Sunil Kumar.
54. Pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy, accused Sunil Kumar impersonating himself as S.C.Jain went to Nirankari colony Post Office, Delhi on 15.3.1997 and presented KVPs bearing Sl.no. 29BB730277 to 29BB730290 purported to have been issued from Panipat City Post Office vide registration no. 735 dated 16.11.1993 to Post Master Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma who made payment of Rs.99,400/ to Sunil Kumar. These KVPs were presented along with identity slip no. 29/2527.
55. Pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy, accused Sunil Kumar Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 20 CC No. 01/10 impersonating himself as S.C.Jain went to Nirankari colony Post Office, Delhi on 15.3.1997 and presented KVPs bearing Sl.no. 29BB730291 to 29BB730300 purported to have been issued from Panipat City Post Office vide registration no. 736 dated 16.11.1993 to Post Master Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma who made payment of Rs.71,000/ to Sunil Kumar. These KVPs were presented along with identity slip no. 31/2527.
56. Pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy, accused Sunil Kumar impersonating himself as S.C.Jain went to Nirankari colony Post Office, Delhi on 19.3.1997 and presented KVPs bearing Sl.no. 31BB015081 to 31BB015090 purported to have been issued from Panipat City Post Office vide registration no. 705 dated 3.11.1993 to Post Master Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma who made payment of Rs.71,000/ to Sunil Kumar. These KVPs were presented along with identity slip no. 15/1302.
57. Pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy, accused Sunil Kumar impersonating himself as S.C.Jain went to Nirankari colony Post Office, Delhi on 19.3.1997 and presented KVPs bearing Sl.no. 31BB015091 to 31BB015100 purported to have been issued from Panipat City Post Office vide registration no. 706 dated 3.11.1993 to Post Master Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma who made payment of Rs.71,000/ to Sunil Kumar. These KVPs were presented along with identity slip no. 16/1302.
58. Pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy, accused Sunil Kumar impersonating himself as S.C.Jain went to Nirankari colony Post Office, Delhi on 19.3.1997 and presented KVPs bearing Sl.no. 31BB015501 to 31BB015520 purported to have been issued from Panipat City Post Office Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 21 CC No. 01/10 vide registration no. 738 dated 17.11.1993 to Post Master Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma who made payment of Rs.1,42,000/ to Sunil Kumar. These KVPs were presented along with identity slip no. 10/2533.
59. Pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy, accused Sunil Kumar impersonating himself as S.C.Jain went to Nirankari colony Post Office, Delhi on 22.3.1997 and presented KVPs bearing Sl.no. 31BB015521 to 31BB015530 purported to have been issued from Panipat City Post Office vide registration no. 739 dated 17.11.1993 to Post Master Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma who made payment of Rs.71,000/ to Sunil Kumar. These KVPs were presented along with identity slip no. 11/2533.
60. Pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy, accused Sunil Kumar impersonating himself as S.C.Jain went to Nirankari colony Post Office, Delhi on 22.3.1997 and presented KVPs bearing Sl.no. 31BB015531 to 31BB015540 purported to have been issued from Panipat City Post Office vide registration no. 740 dated 17.11.1993 to Post Master Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma who made payment of Rs.71,000/ to Sunil Kumar. These KVPs were presented along with identity slip no. 12/2533.
61. Pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy, accused Sunil Kumar impersonating himself as S.C.Jain went to Nirankari colony Post Office, Delhi on 22.3.1997 and presented KVPs bearing Sl.no. 31BB015541 to 31BB015560 purported to have been issued from Panipat City Post Office vide registration no. 741 dated 17.11.1993 to Post Master Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma who made payment of Rs.1,42,000/ to Sunil Kumar. These KVPs were presented along with identity slip no. 13/2533.
Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 22 CC No. 01/10
62. Pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy, accused Sunil Kumar impersonating himself as S.C.Jain went to Nirankari colony Post Office, Delhi on 27.3.1997 and presented KVPs bearing Sl.no. 29BB730271 to 29BB730274 purported to have been issued from Panipat City Post Office vide registration no. 735 dated 16.11.1993 to Post Master Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma who made payment of Rs.28,400/ to Sunil Kumar. These KVPs were presented along with identity slip no. 33/2527.
63. Pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy, accused Sunil Kumar impersonating himself as S.C.Jain went to Nirankari colony Post Office, Delhi on 27.3.1997 and presented KVPs bearing Sl.no. 31BB015561 to 31BB015570 purported to have been issued from Panipat City Post Office vide registration no. 742 dated 17.11.1993 to Post Master Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma who made payment of Rs.71,000/ to Sunil Kumar. These KVPs were presented along with identity slip no. 14/2533.
64. Pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy, accused Sunil Kumar impersonating himself as S.C.Jain went to Nirankari colony Post Office, Delhi on 27.3.1997 and presented KVPs bearing Sl.no. 31BB015571 to 31BB015580 purported to have been issued from Panipat City Post Office vide registration no. 743 dated 17.11.1993 to Post Master Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma who made payment of Rs.71,000/ to Sunil Kumar. These KVPs were presented along with identity slip no. 15/2533.
65. Pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy, accused Sunil Kumar impersonating himself as S.C.Jain went to Nirankari colony Post Office, Delhi on 27.3.1997 and presented KVPs bearing Sl.no. 31BB015581 to Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 23 CC No. 01/10 31BB015590 purported to have been issued from Panipat City Post Office vide registration no. 744 dated 17.11.1993 to Post Master Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma who made payment of Rs.71,000/ to Sunil Kumar. These KVPs were presented along with identity slip no. 16/2533.
66. Pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy, accused Sunil Kumar impersonating himself as S.C.Jain went to Nirankari colony Post Office, Delhi on 29.3.1997 and presented KVPs bearing Sl.no. 31BB012702 to 31BB012711 purported to have been issued from Panipat City Post Office vide registration no. 649 dated 27.3.1993 to Post Master Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma who made payment of Rs.75,000/ to Sunil Kumar. These KVPs were presented along with identity slip no. 09/2541.
67. Pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy, accused Sunil Kumar impersonating himself as S.C.Jain went to Nirankari colony Post Office, Delhi on 29.3.1997 and presented KVPs bearing Sl.no. 31BB015591 to 31BB0155600 purported to have been issued from Panipat City Post Office vide registration no. 745 dated 17.11.1993 to Post Master Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma who made payment of Rs.71,000/ to Sunil Kumar. These KVPs were presented along with identity slip no. 17/2533.
68. Pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy, accused Sunil Kumar impersonating himself as S.C.Jain went to Nirankari colony Post Office, Delhi on 31.3.1997 and presented KVPs bearing Sl.no. 31BB012712 to 31BB012731 purported to have been issued from Panipat City Post Office vide registration no. 650 dated 27.9.1993 to Post Master Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma who made payment of Rs.1,50,000/ to Sunil Kumar.
Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 24 CC No. 01/10
69. Pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy, accused Sunil Kumar impersonating himself as S.C.Jain went to Nirankari colony Post Office, Delhi on 3.4.1997 and presented KVPs bearing Sl.no. 31BB012732 to 31BB012741 purported to have been issued from Panipat City Post Office vide registration no. 651 dated 27.9.1993 to Post Master Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma who made payment of Rs.75,000/ to Sunil Kumar. These KVPs were presented along with identity slip no. 11/2541.
70. Pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy, accused Sunil Kumar impersonating himself as S.C.Jain went to Nirankari colony Post Office, Delhi on 3.4.1997 and presented KVPs bearing Sl.no. 31BB012752 to 31BB012771 purported to have been issued from Panipat City Post Office vide registration no. 653 dated 27.9.1993 to Post Master Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma who made payment of Rs.1,50,000/ to Sunil Kumar. These KVPs were presented along with identity slip no. 13/2541.
71. Pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy, accused Sunil Kumar impersonating himself as S.C.Jain went to Nirankari colony Post Office, Delhi on 8.4.1997 and presented KVPs bearing Sl.no. 31BB012742 to 31BB012751 purported to have been issued from Panipat City Post Office vide registration no. 652 dated 27.9.1993 to Post Master Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma who made payment of Rs.75,000/ to Sunil Kumar. These KVPs were presented along with identity slip no. 12/2541.
72. Pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy, accused Sunil Kumar impersonating himself as S.C.Jain went to Nirankari colony Post Office, Delhi on 8.4.1997 and presented KVPs bearing Sl.no. 31BB012772 to Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 25 CC No. 01/10 31BB012781 purported to have been issued from Panipat City Post Office vide registration no. 654 dated 27.9.1993 to Post Master Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma who made payment of Rs.75,000/ to Sunil Kumar. These KVPs were presented along with identity slip no. 14/2541.
73. Pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy, accused Sunil Kumar impersonating himself as S.C.Jain went to Nirankari colony Post Office, Delhi on 8.4.1997 and presented KVPs bearing Sl.no. 31BB012792 to 31BB012800 purported to have been issued from Panipat City Post Office vide registration no. 656 dated 27.9.1993 to Post Master Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma who made payment of Rs.75,000/ to Sunil Kumar. These KVPs were presented along with identity slip no. 16/2541.
74. Pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy, accused Sunil Kumar impersonating himself as S.C.Jain went to Nirankari colony Post Office, Delhi on 8.4.1997 and presented KVPs bearing Sl.no. 31BB012821 to 31BB012830 purported to have been issued from Panipat City Post Office vide registration no. 658 dated 28.9.1993 to Post Master Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma who made payment of Rs.75,000/ to Sunil Kumar. These KVPs were presented along with identity slip no. 18/2541.
75. Pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy, accused Sunil Kumar impersonating himself as S.C.Jain went to Nirankari colony Post Office, Delhi on 22.4.1997 and presented KVPs bearing Sl.no. 31BB012861 to 31BB012870 purported to have been issued from Panipat City Post Office vide registration no. 661 dated 28.9.1993 to Post Master Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma who made payment of Rs.75,000/ to Sunil Kumar. These Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 26 CC No. 01/10 KVPs were presented along with identity slip no. 21/2541.
76. Pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy, accused Sunil Kumar impersonating himself as S.C.Jain went to Nirankari colony Post Office, Delhi on 22.4.1997 and presented KVPs bearing Sl.no. 31BB012871 to 31BB012880 purported to have been issued from Panipat City Post Office vide registration no. 662 dated 28.9.1993 to Post Master Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma who made payment of Rs.75,000/ to Sunil Kumar. These KVPs were presented along with identity slip no. 22/2541.
77. Pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy, accused Sunil Kumar impersonating himself as S.C.Jain went to Nirankari colony Post Office, Delhi on 22.4.1997 and presented KVPs bearing Sl.no. 31BB012881 to 31BB012890 purported to have been issued from Panipat City Post Office vide registration no. 663 dated 28.9.1993 to Post Master Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma who made payment of Rs.75,000/ to Sunil Kumar. These KVPs were presented along with identity slip no. 23/2541.
78. Pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy, accused Sunil Kumar impersonating himself as S.C.Jain went to Nirankari colony Post Office, Delhi on 22.4.1997 and presented KVPs bearing Sl.no. 31BB012891 to 31BB012900 purported to have been issued from Panipat City Post Office vide registration no. 664 dated 28.9.1993 to Post Master Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma who made payment of Rs.75,000/ to Sunil Kumar. These KVPs were presented along with identity slip no. 24/2541.
Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 27 CC No. 01/10
79. Pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy, accused Sunil Kumar impersonating himself as S.C.Jain went to Nirankari colony Post Office, Delhi on 26.4.1997 and presented KVPs bearing Sl.no. 31BB012801 to 31BB012820 purported to have been issued from Panipat City Post Office vide registration no. 657 dated 28.9.1993 to Post Master Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma who made payment of Rs.1,50,000/ to Sunil Kumar.
80. Pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy, accused Sunil Kumar impersonating himself as S.C.Jain went to Nirankari colony Post Office, Delhi on 26.4.1997 and presented KVPs bearing Sl.no. 31BB012841 to 31BB012860 purported to have been issued from Panipat City Post Office vide registration no. 660 dated 28.9.1993 to Post Master Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma who made payment of Rs.1,50,000/ to Sunil Kumar.
81. Pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy, accused Sunil Kumar impersonating himself as S.C.Jain went to Nirankari colony Post Office, Delhi on 28.4.1997 and presented KVPs bearing Sl.no. 31BB012831 to 31BB012840 purported to have been issued from Panipat City Post Office vide registration no. 659 dated 28.9.1993 to Post Master Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma who made payment of Rs.75,000/ to Sunil Kumar. These KVPs were presented along with identity slip no. 19/2541.
82. Investigation has further revealed that in pursuance of the said conspiracy accused Sunil Kumar personating himself as S.C. Jain again went to Nirankari Colony Post Office on 13.05.97 and presented KVPs bearing serial number 31BB012641 to 31BB012650 purported to have been issued from Panipat City Post Office vide Regn. No. 682 dated Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 28 CC No. 01/10 21.10.93 to postmaster Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma who made payment of Rs. 75,000/ to him against these KVPs. These KVPs were issued vide Identity Slip No. 10/2544.
83. Investigation has further revealed that in pursuance of the said conspiracy accused Sunil Kumar personating himself as S.C. Jain again went to Nirankari Colony Post Office on 16.05.97 and presented KVPs bearing serial number 31BB012651 to 31BB012660 purported to have been issued from Panipat City Post Office vide Regn. No. 683 dated 21.10.93 to postmaster Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma who made payment of Rs. 75,000/ to him against these KVPs. These KVPs were issued vide Identity Slip No. 17/2544.
84. Investigation has further revealed that in pursuance of the said conspiracy accused Sunil Kumar personating himself as S.C. Jain again went to Nirankari Colony Post Office on 16.05.97 and presented KVPs bearing serial number 31BB012661 to 31BB012670 purported to have been issued from Panipat City Post Office vide Regn. No. 684 dated 21.10.93 to postmaster Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma who made payment of Rs. 75,000/ to him against these KVPs. These KVPs were issued vide Identity Slip No. 18/2544.
85. Investigation has further revealed that in pursuance of the said conspiracy accused Sunil Kumar personating himself as S.C. Jain again went to Nirankari Colony Post Office on 16.05.97 and presented KVPs bearing serial number 31BB012671 to 31BB012680 purported to have been issued from Panipat City Post Office vide Regn. No. 685 dated Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 29 CC No. 01/10 21.10.93 to postmaster Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma who made payment of Rs. 75,000/ to him against these KVPs. These KVPs were issued vide Identity Slip No. 19/2544.
86. Investigation has further revealed that in pursuance of the said conspiracy accused Sunil Kumar personating himself as S.C. Jain again went to Nirankari Colony Post Office on 16.05.97 and presented KVPs bearing serial number 31BB012681 to 31BB012690 purported to have been issued from Panipat City Post Office vide Regn. No. 686 dated 21.10.93 to postmaster Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma who made payment of Rs. 75,000/ to him against these KVPs. These KVPs were issued vide Identity Slip No. 20/2544.
87. Investigation has further revealed that in pursuance of the said conspiracy accused Sunil Kumar personating himself as S.C. Jain again went to Nirankari Colony Post Office on 16.05.97 and presented KVPs bearing serial number 31BB012691 to 31BB012700 purported to have been issued from Panipat City Post Office vide Regn. No. 687 dated 21.10.93 to postmaster Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma who made payment of Rs. 75,000/ to him against these KVPs. These KVPs were issued vide Identity Slip No. 21/2544.
88. Investigation has further revealed that in pursuance of the said conspiracy accused Sunil Kumar personating himself as S.C. Jain again went to Nirankari Colony Post Office on 10.06.97 and presented KVPs bearing serial no. 31BB010501 to 31BB010510 purported to have been issued from Panipat City Post Office vide registration no. 750 dated Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 30 CC No. 01/10 17.11.93 to Postmaster Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma who made payment of Rs. 75,000/ to him against these KVPs.
89. Investigation has further revealed that in pursuance of the said conspiracy accused Sunil Kumar personating himself as S.C. Jain again went to Nirankari Colony Post Office on 10.06.97 and presented KVPs bearing serial no. 31BB010511 to 31BB010530 purported to have been issued from Panipat City Post Office vide registration no. 751 dated 17.11.93 to Postmaster Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma who made payment of Rs. 1,50,000/ to him against these KVPs.
90. Investigation has further revealed that in pursuance of the said conspiracy accused Sunil Kumar personating himself as S.C. Jain again went to Nirankari Colony Post Office on 10.06.97 and presented KVPs bearing serial no. 31BB010531 to 31BB010540 purported to have been issued from Panipat City Post Office vide registration no. 752 dated 17.11.93 to Postmaster Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma who made payment of Rs. 75,000/ to him against these KVPs.
91. Investigation has further revealed that in pursuance of the said conspiracy accused Sunil Kumar personating himself as S.C. Jain again went to Nirankari Colony Post Office on 10.06.97 and presented KVPs bearing serial no. 31BB010541 to 31BB010560 purported to have been issued from Panipat City Post Office vide registration no. 753 dated 17.11.93 to Postmaster Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma who made payment of Rs. 1,50,000/ to him against these KVPs.
Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 31 CC No. 01/10
92. Investigation has further revealed that in pursuance of the said conspiracy accused Sunil Kumar personating himself as S.C. Jain again went to Nirankari Colony Post Office on 13.06.97 and presented KVPs bearing serial no. 31BB010561 to 31BB010570 purported to have been issued from Panipat City Post Office vide registration no. 754 dated 17.11.93 to Postmaster Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma who made payment of Rs. 75,000/ to him against these KVPs.
93. Investigation has further revealed that in pursuance of the said conspiracy accused Sunil Kumar personating himself as S.C. Jain again went to Nirankari Colony Post Office on 14.06.97 and presented KVPs bearing serial no. 31BB010571 to 31BB010580 purported to have been issued from Panipat City Post Office vide registration no. 755 dated 17.11.93 to Postmaster Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma who made payment of Rs. 75,000/ to him against these KVPs.
94. Investigation has further revealed that in pursuance of the said conspiracy accused Sunil Kumar personating himself as S.C. Jain again went to Nirankari Colony Post Office on 21.06.97 and presented KVPs bearing serial no. 31BB010581 to 31BB010590 purported to have been issued from Panipat City Post Office vide registration no. 756 dated 17.11.93 to Postmaster Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma who made payment of Rs. 75,000/ to him against these KVPs.
95. Investigation has further revealed that in pursuance of the said conspiracy accused Sunil Kumar personating himself as S.C. Jain again went to Nirankari Colony Post Office on 21.06.97 and presented KVPs Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 32 CC No. 01/10 bearing serial no. 31BB010591 to 31BB010600 purported to have been issued from Panipat City Post Office vide registration no. 757 dated 17.11.93 to Postmaster Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma who made payment of Rs. 75,000/ to him against these KVPs.
96. Investigation has further revealed that in pursuance of the said conspiracy accused Sunil Kumar personating himself as S.C. Jain again went to Nirankari Colony Post Office on 21.06.97 and presented KVPs bearing serial no. 31BB010601 to 31BB010610 purported to have been issued from Panipat City Post Office vide registration no. 761 dated 18.11.93 to Postmaster Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma who made payment of Rs. 75,000/ to him against these KVPs.
97. Investigation has further revealed that in pursuance of the said conspiracy accused Sunil Kumar personating himself as S.C. Jain again went to Nirankari Colony Post Office on 26.06.97 and presented KVPs bearing serial number 31BB010611 to 31BB010620 purported to have been issued from Panipat City Post Office vide Regn. No. 762 dated 18.11.93 to postmaster Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma who made payment of Rs. 75,000/ to him against these KVPs. These KVPs were issued vide Identity Slip No. 19/2537.
98. Investigation has further revealed that in pursuance of the said conspiracy accused Sunil Kumar personating himself as S.C. Jain again went to Nirankari Colony Post Office on 26.06.97 and presented KVPs bearing serial number 31BB010621 to 31BB010630 purported to have been issued from Panipat City Post Office vide Regn. No. 763 dated Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 33 CC No. 01/10 18.11.93 to postmaster Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma who made payment of Rs. 75,000/ to him against these KVPs. These KVPs were issued vide Identity Slip No. 20/2537.
99. Investigation has further revealed that in pursuance of the said conspiracy accused Sunil Kumar personating himself as S.C. Jain again went to Nirankari Colony Post Office on 30.06.97 and presented KVPs bearing serial number 31BB010631 to 31BB010640 purported to have been issued from Panipat City Post Office vide Regn. No. 764 dated 18.11.93 to postmaster Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma who made payment of Rs. 75,000/ to him against these KVPs. These KVPs were issued vide Identity Slip No. 21/2537.
100. Investigation has further revealed that in pursuance of the said conspiracy accused Sunil Kumar personating himself as S.C. Jain again went to Nirankari Colony Post Office on 30.06.97 and presented KVPs bearing serial number 31BB010641 to 31BB010660 purported to have been issued from Panipat City Post Office vide Regn. No. 765 dated 18.11.93 to postmaster Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma who made payment of Rs. 1,50,000/ to him against these KVPs. These KVPs were issued vide Identity Slip No. 22/2537.
101. Investigation has further revealed that in pursuance of the said conspiracy accused Sunil Kumar personating himself as S.C. Jain again went to Nirankari Colony Post Office on 05.07.97 and presented KVPs bearing serial number 31BB010661 to 31BB010670 purported to have been issued from Panipat City Post Office vide Regn. No. 766 dated Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 34 CC No. 01/10 18.11.93 to postmaster Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma who made payment of Rs. 75,000/ to him against these KVPs. These KVPs were issued vide Identity Slip No. 23/2537.
102. Investigation has further revealed that in pursuance of the said conspiracy accused Sunil Kumar personating himself as S.C. Jain again went to Nirankari Colony Post Office on 05.07.97 and presented KVPs bearing serial number 31BB010671 to 31BB010680 purported to have been issued from Panipat City Post Office vide Regn. No. 767 dated 18.11.93 to postmaster Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma who made payment of Rs. 75,000/ to him against these KVPs.
103. Investigation has further revealed that in pursuance of the said conspiracy accused Sunil Kumar personating himself as S.C. Jain again went to Nirankari Colony Post Office on 05.07.97 and presented KVPs bearing serial number 31BB010681 to 31BB010690 purported to have been issued from Panipat City Post Office vide Regn. No. 768 dated 18.11.93 to postmaster Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma who made payment of Rs. 75,000/ to him against these KVPs.
104. Investigation has further revealed that in pursuance of the said conspiracy accused Sunil Kumar personating himself as S.C. Jain again went to Nirankari Colony Post Office on 12.07.97 and presented KVPs bearing serial number 31BB010691 to 31BB010700 purported to have been issued from Panipat City Post Office vide Regn. No. 769 dated 18.11.93 to postmaster Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma who made payment of Rs. 75,000/ to him against these KVPs. These KVPs were Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 35 CC No. 01/10 issued vide Identity Slip No. 20/2537.
105. Investigation has revealed that accused Sunil Kumar fraudulently submitted three handwritten letters dated 28.5.97, 2.06.97 and 09.06.97 to accused Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma showing his name as Sh. Subhash Chand Jain resident of Plot No. 120, Sugarpur, Delhi. These letters bore the signatures of Sub Postmaster Nirankari Colony Post Office and Sub Postmaster Panipat city Post Office. Investigation has revealed that all the KVPs that were encashed by accused Sunil Kumar were purported to have been issued from Panipat City Post Office.
106. Investigation has thus revealed that accused Sunil Kumar has personated himself as S.C. Jain and presented before accused Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma Postmaster Nirankari Colony Post Office a total number of 895 above referred stolen/forged KVPs of the face value of Rs. 47,00,000/ and encashed the same by fraudulent means to the tune of Rs. 68,69,200/.
107. Investigation has further revealed that in pursuance of the said conspiracy accused Manoj Kumar @ Tinku personating himself as Arun Kumar went to Nirankari Colony Post Office on 03.11.96 and presented KVPs bearing serial number 31BB014271 to 31BB014280 purported to have been issued from Dadri Post Office Ghaziabad (UP) vide registration no. 524 dt. 07.11.93 to Postmaster Mahinder Singh @Mahinder Verma who made payment of Rs. 71,000/ to him against these KVPs.
108. Investigation has further revealed that in pursuance of the said conspiracy accused Manoj Kumar @ Tinku personating himself as Arun Kumar again went to Nirankari Colony Post Office on 11.11.96 and Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 36 CC No. 01/10 presented KVPs bearing serial number 31BB014282 to 31BB014291 purported to have been issued from Dadri Post Office Ghaziabad (UP) vide registration no. 525 dt. 07.11.93 to Postmaster Mahinder Singh @Mahinder Verma who made payment of Rs. 71,000/ to him against these KVPs.
109. Investigation has further revealed that in pursuance of the said conspiracy accused Manoj Kumar @ Tinku personating himself as Arun Kumar again went to Nirankari Colony Post Office on 16.11.96 and presented KVPs bearing serial number 31BB013911 to 31BB013930 purported to have been issued from Dadri Post Office Ghaziabad (UP) vide registration no. 521 dt. 28.10.93 to Postmaster Mahinder Singh @Mahinder Verma who made payment of Rs. 1,42,000/ to him against these KVPs.
110. Investigation has further revealed that in pursuance of the said conspiracy accused Manoj Kumar @ Tinku personating himself as Arun Kumar again went to Nirankari Colony Post Office on 19.11.96 and presented KVPs bearing serial number 31BB013941 to 31BB013950 purported to have been issued from Dadri Post Office Ghaziabad (UP) vide registration no. 518 dt. 04.11.93 to Postmaster Mahinder Singh @Mahinder Verma who made payment of Rs. 71,000/ to him against these KVPs.
111. Investigation has further revealed that in pursuance of the said conspiracy accused Manoj Kumar @ Tinku personating himself as Arun Kumar again went to Nirankari Colony Post Office on 19.11.96 and presented KVPs bearing serial number 31BB013951 to 31BB013960 purported to have been issued from Dadri Post Office Ghaziabad (UP) vide registration no. 519 dt. 04.11.93 to Postmaster Mahinder Singh @Mahinder Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 37 CC No. 01/10 Verma who made payment of Rs. 71,000/ to him against these KVPs.
112. Investigation has further revealed that in pursuance of the said conspiracy accused Manoj Kumar @ Tinku personating himself as Arun Kumar again went to Nirankari Colony Post Office on 22.11.96 and presented KVPs bearing serial number 31BB013961 to 31BB013980 purported to have been issued from Dadri Post Office Ghaziabad (UP) vide registration no. 529 dt. 05.11.93 to Postmaster Mahinder Singh @Mahinder Verma who made payment of Rs. 1,42,000/ to him against these KVPs.
113. Investigation has further revealed that in pursuance of the said conspiracy accused Manoj Kumar @ Tinku personating himself as Arun Kumar again went to Nirankari Colony Post Office on 27.11.96 and presented KVPs bearing serial number 31BB006901 to 31BB006920 purported to have been issued from Dadri Post Office Ghaziabad (UP) vide registration no. 506 dt. 25.10.93 to Postmaster Mahinder Singh @Mahinder Verma who made payment of Rs. 1,42,000/ to him against these KVPs.
114. Investigation has further revealed that in pursuance of the said conspiracy accused Manoj Kumar @ Tinku personating himself as Arun Kumar again went to Nirankari Colony Post Office on 27.11.96 and presented KVPs bearing serial number 31BB006921 to 31BB006940 purported to have been issued from Dadri Post Office Ghaziabad (UP) vide registration no. 507 dt. 25.10.93 to Postmaster Mahinder Singh @Mahinder Verma who made payment of Rs. 1,42,000/ to him against these KVPs.
Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 38 CC No. 01/10
115. Investigation has further revealed that in pursuance of the said conspiracy accused Manoj Kumar @ Tinku personating himself as Arun Kumar again went to Nirankari Colony Post Office on 29.11.96 and presented KVPs bearing serial number 31BB006981 to 31BB006999 purported to have been issued from Dadri Post Office Ghaziabad (UP) vide registration no. 511 dt. 26.10.93 to Postmaster Mahinder Singh @Mahinder Verma who made payment of Rs. 1,34,000/ to him against these KVPs.
116. Investigation has further revealed that in pursuance of the said conspiracy accused Manoj Kumar @ Tinku personating himself as Arun Kumar again went to Nirankari Colony Post Office on 03.12.96 and presented KVPs bearing serial number 31BB006141 to 31BB006160 purported to have been issued from Dadri Post Office Ghaziabad (UP) vide registration no. 483 dt. 18.10.93 to Postmaster Mahinder Singh @Mahinder Verma who made payment of Rs. 1,42,000/ to him against these KVPs.
117. Investigation has further revealed that in pursuance of the said conspiracy accused Manoj Kumar @ Tinku personating himself as Arun Kumar again went to Nirankari Colony Post Office on 03.12.96 and presented KVPs bearing serial number 31BB006161 to 31BB006180 purported to have been issued from Dadri Post Office Ghaziabad (UP) vide registration no. 484 dt. 18.10.93 to Postmaster Mahinder Singh @Mahinder Verma who made payment of Rs. 1,42,000/ to him against these KVPs.
118. Investigation has further revealed that in pursuance of the said conspiracy accused Manoj Kumar @ Tinku personating himself as Arun Kumar again went to Nirankari Colony Post Office on 07.12.96 and Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 39 CC No. 01/10 presented KVPs bearing serial number 31BB006881 to 31BB006900 purported to have been issued from Dadri Post Office Ghaziabad (UP) vide registration no. 477 dt. 15.10.93 to Postmaster Mahinder Singh @Mahinder Verma who made payment of Rs. 1,42,000/ to him against these KVPs.
119. Investigation has further revealed that in pursuance of the said conspiracy accused Manoj Kumar @ Tinku personating himself as Arun Kumar again went to Nirankari Colony Post Office on 10.12.96 and presented KVPs bearing serial number 31BB006641 to 31BB006660 purported to have been issued from Dadri Post Office Ghaziabad (UP) vide registration no. 478 dt. 13.10.93 to Postmaster Mahinder Singh @Mahinder Verma who made payment of Rs. 1,42,000/ to him against these KVPs.
120. Investigation has further revealed that in pursuance of the said conspiracy accused Manoj Kumar @ Tinku personating himself as Arun Kumar again went to Nirankari Colony Post Office on 10.12.96 and presented KVPs bearing serial number 31BB006661 to 31BB006680 purported to have been issued from Dadri Post Office Ghaziabad (UP) vide registration no. 479 dt. 13.10.93 to Postmaster Mahinder Singh @Mahinder Verma who made payment of Rs. 1,42,000/ to him against these KVPs.
121. Investigation has further revealed that in pursuance of the said conspiracy accused Manoj Kumar @ Tinku personating himself as Arun Kumar again went to Nirankari Colony Post Office on 14.12.96 and presented KVPs bearing serial number 31BB006741 to 31BB006760 purported to have been issued from Dadri Post Office Ghaziabad (UP) vide registration no. 471 dt. 14.10.93 to Postmaster Mahinder Singh @Mahinder Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 40 CC No. 01/10 Verma who made payment of Rs. 1,42,000/ to him against these KVPs.
122. Investigation has further revealed that in pursuance of the said conspiracy accused Manoj Kumar @ Tinku personating himself as Arun Kumar again went to Nirankari Colony Post Office on 14.12.96 and presented KVPs bearing serial number 31BB006761 to 31BB006780 purported to have been issued from Dadri Post Office Ghaziabad (UP) vide registration no. 472 dt. 14.10.93 to Postmaster Mahinder Singh @Mahinder Verma who made payment of Rs. 1,42,000/ to him against these KVPs.
123. Investigation has further revealed that in pursuance of the said conspiracy accused Manoj Kumar @ Tinku personating himself as Arun Kumar again went to Nirankari Colony Post Office on 16.12.96 and presented KVPs bearing serial number 31BB006841 to 31BB006860 purported to have been issued from Dadri Post Office Ghaziabad (UP) vide registration no. 475 dt. 15.10.93 to Postmaster Mahinder Singh @Mahinder Verma who made payment of Rs. 1,42,000/ to him against these KVPs.
124. Investigation has further revealed that in pursuance of the said conspiracy accused Manoj Kumar @ Tinku personating himself as Arun Kumar again went to Nirankari Colony Post Office on 16.12.96 and presented KVPs bearing serial number 31BB006861 to 31BB006880 purported to have been issued from Dadri Post Office Ghaziabad (UP) vide registration no. 476 dt. 15.10.93 to Postmaster Mahinder Singh @Mahinder Verma who made payment of Rs. 1,42,000/ to him against these KVPs.
Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 41 CC No. 01/10
125. Investigation has further revealed that in pursuance of the said conspiracy accused Manoj Kumar @ Tinku personating himself as Arun Kumar again went to Nirankari Colony Post Office on 21.12.96 and presented KVPs bearing serial number 31BB006341 to 31BB006360 purported to have been issued from Dadri Post Office Ghaziabad (UP) vide registration no. 462 dt. 09.10.93 to Postmaster Mahinder Singh @Mahinder Verma who made payment of Rs. 1,42,000/ to him against these KVPs.
126. Investigation has further revealed that in pursuance of the said conspiracy accused Manoj Kumar @ Tinku personating himself as Arun Kumar again went to Nirankari Colony Post Office on 21.12.96 and presented KVPs bearing serial number 31BB006361 to 31BB006380 purported to have been issued from Dadri Post Office Ghaziabad (UP) vide registration no. 463 dt. 09.10.93 to Postmaster Mahinder Singh @Mahinder Verma who made payment of Rs. 1,42,000/ to him against these KVPs.
127. Investigation has further revealed that in pursuance of the said conspiracy accused Manoj Kumar @ Tinku personating himself as Arun Kumar again went to Nirankari Colony Post Office on 23.12.96 and presented KVPs bearing serial number 31BB006241 to 31BB006260 purported to have been issued from Dadri Post Office Ghaziabad (UP) vide registration no. 457 dt. 08.10.93 to Postmaster Mahinder Singh @Mahinder Verma who made payment of Rs. 1,42,000/ to him against these KVPs.
128. Investigation has further revealed that in pursuance of the said conspiracy accused Manoj Kumar @ Tinku personating himself as Arun Kumar again went to Nirankari Colony Post Office on 27.12.96 and Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 42 CC No. 01/10 presented KVPs bearing serial number 31BB006441 to 31BB006460 purported to have been issued from Dadri Post Office Ghaziabad (UP) vide registration no. 467 dt. 11.10.93 to Postmaster Mahinder Singh @Mahinder Verma who made payment of Rs. 1,42,000/ to him against these KVPs.
129. Investigation has further revealed that in pursuance of the said conspiracy accused Manoj Kumar @ Tinku personating himself as Arun Kumar again went to Nirankari Colony Post Office on 27.12.96 and presented KVPs bearing serial number 31BB006461 to 31BB006480 purported to have been issued from Dadri Post Office Ghaziabad (UP) vide registration no. 468 dt. 11.10.93 to Postmaster Mahinder Singh @Mahinder Verma who made payment of Rs. 1,42,000/ to him against these KVPs.
130. Investigation has further revealed that in pursuance of the said conspiracy accused Manoj Kumar @ Tinku personating himself as Arun Kumar again went to Nirankari Colony Post Office on 27.12.96 and presented KVPs bearing serial number 31BB006481 to 31BB006500 purported to have been issued from Dadri Post Office Ghaziabad (UP) vide registration no. 469A dt. 11.10.93 to Postmaster Mahinder Singh @Mahinder Verma who made payment of Rs. 1,42,000/ to him against these KVPs.
131. Investigation has further revealed that in pursuance of the said conspiracy accused Manoj Kumar @ Tinku personating himself as Arun Kumar again went to Nirankari Colony Post Office on 12.08.97 and presented KVPs bearing serial number 31BB010141 to 31BB010150 purported to have been issued from Dadri Post Office Ghaziabad (UP) vide Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 43 CC No. 01/10 registration no. 630 dt. 24.12.93 to Postmaster Mahinder Singh @Mahinder Verma who made payment of Rs. 75,000/ to him against these KVPs. These KVPs were issued vide identity slip no. 07/43893.
132. Investigation has further revealed that in pursuance of the said conspiracy accused Manoj Kumar @ Tinku personating himself as Arun Kumar again went to Nirankari Colony Post Office on 12.08.97 and presented KVPs bearing serial number 31BB010151 to 31BB010160 purported to have been issued from Dadri Post Office Ghaziabad (UP) vide registration no. 631 dt. 24.12.93 to Postmaster Mahinder Singh @Mahinder Verma who made payment of Rs. 75,000/ to him against these KVPs. These KVPs were issued vide identity slip no. 08/43893.
133. Investigation has further revealed that in pursuance of the said conspiracy accused Manoj Kumar @ Tinku personating himself as Arun Kumar again went to Nirankari Colony Post Office on 16.08.97 and presented KVPs bearing serial number 31BB010161 to 31BB010170 purported to have been issued from Dadri Post Office Ghaziabad (UP) vide registration no. 633 dt. 24.12.93 to Postmaster Mahinder Singh @Mahinder Verma who made payment of Rs. 75,000/ to him against these KVPs. These KVPs were issued vide identity slip no. 09/43893.
134. Investigation has further revealed that in pursuance of the said conspiracy accused Manoj Kumar @ Tinku personating himself as Arun Kumar again went to Nirankari Colony Post Office on 16.08.97 and presented KVPs bearing serial number 31BB010171 to 31BB010180 purported to have been issued from Dadri Post Office Ghaziabad (UP) vide Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 44 CC No. 01/10 registration no. 634 dt. 24.12.93 to Postmaster Mahinder Singh @Mahinder Verma who made payment of Rs. 75,000/ to him against these KVPs. These KVPs were issued vide identity slip no. 10/43893.
135. Investigation has further revealed that in pursuance of the said conspiracy accused Manoj Kumar @ Tinku personating himself as Arun Kumar again went to Nirankari Colony Post Office on 19.08.97 and presented KVPs bearing serial number 31BB010181 to 31BB010190 purported to have been issued from Dadri Post Office Ghaziabad (UP) vide registration no. 635 dt. 24.12.93 to Postmaster Mahinder Singh @Mahinder Verma who made payment of Rs. 75,000/ to him against these KVPs. These KVPs were issued vide identity slip no. 11/43893.
136. Investigation has further revealed that in pursuance of the said conspiracy accused Manoj Kumar @ Tinku personating himself as Arun Kumar again went to Nirankari Colony Post Office on 23.08.97 and presented KVPs bearing serial number 31BB010191 to 31BB010200 purported to have been issued from Dadri Post Office Ghaziabad (UP) vide registration no. 636 dt. 24.12.93 to Postmaster Mahinder Singh @Mahinder Verma who made payment of Rs. 75,000/ to him against these KVPs. These KVPs were issued vide identity slip no. 12/43893.
137. Investigation has thus revealed that accused Manoj Kumar @ Tinku has personated himself as Arun Kumar and presented before accused Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma Postmaster Nirankari Colony Post Office a total number of 499 above referred stolen/forged KVPs of the face value of Rs. 24,95,000/ and encashed the same by fraudulent means to Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 45 CC No. 01/10 the tune of Rs. 35,66,000/.
138. Investigation has further revealed that in accused Sohan Pal Sharma @ Panditji and accused Manoj Kumar @ Tinku were into criminal conspiracy because both of them presented KVPs for encashment bearing identity slip book no. 43893 being purported simultaneously from Machharauli and Dadri Post Offices. Manoj Kumar presented the KVPs at Nirankari Colony Post Office whereas Sohan Pal Sharma @ Panditji presented the KVPs at Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office.
139. Investigation has further revealed that accused Sohan Pal Sharma @ Panditji forged the body writing of the KVPs in the names of Arun Kumar and Rajesh Kumar on KVPs bearing serial numbers 31BB010141 to 31BB010200, 31BB013187 to 31BB013190, 31BB014282 to 31BB014291, 31BB014261 to 31BB014280, 31BB013901 to 31BB013930, 31BB013941 to 31BB014000, 31BB006901 to 31BB006999, 31BB006101 to 31BB006200, 31BB006601 to 31BB0106900, 31BB006301 to 31BB006500, 31BB006221 to 31BB006300 and thus facilitated the encashment of stolen/forged KVPs to the tune of Rs. 68,61,300/ from Nirankari Colony Post Office.
140. Investigation has further revealed that in pursuance of said criminal conspiracy accused Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma posted as Sub Postmaster Nirankari Colony Post Office abused his position as a public servant and made payment against those KVPs which were known to him to be stolen and forged KVPs bearing serial numbers 31BB014282 to Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 46 CC No. 01/10 31BB014291, 31BB014271 to 31BB014280, 31BB006841 to 31BB006900, 31BB013911 to 31BB013930, 31BB013941 to 31BB013980, 31BB006101 to 31BB006180, 31BB006341 to 31BB006380, 31BB006441 to 31BB006500, 31BB006241 to 31BB006260, 31BB006601 to 31BB006680, 31BB006741 to 31BB006780, 31BB006981 to 31BB006999, 31BB006901 to 31BB006940, 31BB010141 to 31BB0101200, 31BB006281 to 31BB006300, 31BB015011 to 31BB015080, 31BB015101 to 31BB015180, 31BB012611 to 31BB012700, 31BB012702 to 31BB012800, 28CC386301 to 28CC386350, 31BB010501 to 31BB010610, 29BB730201 to 29BB730263, 29BB730265 to 29BB730274, 29BB730277 to 29BB730300, 31BB015501 to 31BB015600, 31BB012801 to 31BB012900, 31BB010611 to 31BB010700, 31BB015081 to 31BB015100, 31BB013187 to 31BB013190, 31BB013981 to 31BB014000, 31BB006941 to 31BB006980, 31BB006181 to 31BB006200, 31BB006681 to 31BB006740, 31BB006781 to 31BB006840, 31BB006221 to 31BB006240, 31BB006381 to 31BB006440, 31BB006261 to 31BB006280, 31BB006301 to 31BB006340, 28CC970351 to 28CC970400 and 31BB015181 to 31BB015200 by intentionally avoiding verification of the KVPs from Lost Circulars issued by the Department of Posts from time to time and he deliberately did not follow the laid down procedures in the Post Office Savings Bank Manual Vol.II regarding encashment of Cash Certificates. Sh. Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma also failed to obtain/verify the proof of identity of S/Sh. Manoj Kumar @Tinku, Sanjeev Kumar @ Kaka and Sunil Kumar. Accused Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma also deliberately did not check that the identity Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 47 CC No. 01/10 slip booklets bearing the same serial number that were obtained fraudulently by accused K.M. Singh, Harish Chander, Sohan Pal Sharma and Hari Narain Pal @ Neta from Lodi Road Post Office were being used for Dadri and Machhrauli Post Offices at the same time.
Accused Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma also deliberately did not check that KVP bearing sl. no. 31BB 015533 was not issued in any name but still he made the payment of Rs. 7100/ to accused Sunil Kumar. He also made a payment of Rs. 7100/ against KVP No. 31BB 013912 and KVP No. 31BB 006344 to accused Manoj Kumar @Tinku and did not obtain his signatures on the receipt column. Accused Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma made payment of Rs. 7100/ against KVP No. 31BB 006241 to accused who signed on the receipt column but did not fill in the amount column. Accused Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma made payment of Rs. 7100/ each against KVPs no. 31BB006319, 31BB006748 and 31BB006320 which did not bear any registration no. of the issuing post office from where they were purported to have been issued. Accused Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma also made payment on 13.05.97 against KVP No. 31BB012611 to 31BB012620 with identity slip no. 13/2544, 31BB012621 to 31BB012630 with identity slip no. 14/2544, 31BB012631 to 31BB012640 with identity slip no. 15/2544 and 31BB012641 to 31BB012650 with identity slip no. 10/2544. He deliberately did not check that the identity slip no.'s were not proper on the KVPs which have been issued on the same date. Accused Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma also made a payment of Rs. 14,200/ against KVP no.'s 31BB006459 and 31BB006460 to accused Manoj Kumar @ Tinku @Arun Kumar whereas the KVPs were purported to have been issued in the names of Rajesh Kumar and Rita. Accused Mahinder Singh @ Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 48 CC No. 01/10 Mahinder Verma also failed to put the round stamp on the KVPs bearing number 31BB006492 and 31BB006463. Accused Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma made payment against KVP bearing no. 20CC386301 to 20CC386310 with registration no. 280 dt. 16.12.93 on 08.02.97 whereas on 04.02.97 he had made payment against KVPs bearing serial number 31BB015011 to 31BB015050 to accused Sunil Kumar with registration no. 722 and 723 dated 03.11.93. Thus, by abusing his official position as a public servant, he caused undue pecuniary advantage to himself and for other accused persons and caused wrongful corresponding pecuniary loss to the Government of India to the tune of Rs. 1,48,90,100/.
141. On the basis of complaint lodged, investigation was undertaken and on completion thereof, chargesheet was filed.
142. On 28.04.2003, the charges were framed against accused Kishan Madhav Singh, Sohan Pal Sharma @ Panditji, Manoj kumar @ Tinku, H. N. Pal @ Neta, Sunil Kumar, Sanjeev kumar, Laxman Prashad @ Thakur, Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma for the offences punishable U/s 120 B of IPC r/w Sections 419/420/467/468/471 & 409 thereof and further r/w 13(1)(d) & Sec. 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Further, the substantive charges were framed against accused H. N.Pal @ Neta, Sunil Kumar, Sanjeev kumar, Laxman Prashad @ Thakur & Manoj Kumar @ Tinku for the offences punishable U/s 419/420/467/468/471 IPC.
Sohan Pal Sharma @ Panditji was also charged for the substantive offence punishable U/s 467 & 468 IPC.
Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 49 CC No. 01/10 Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma was also charged for the substantive offence punishable U/s 13(1)(d) r/w Sec. 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and also U/s 409 IPC.
143. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 37 witnesses in all. Let me state in brief the statements made by the prosecution witnesses.
PW1 B.D. L. SRIVASTAVA, Senior Superintendent, Post Office, Central Division, Meghdoot Bhavan, New Delhi was holding the joint charge of New Delhi, Sorting Division at that time. He had the power of removing the employees upto the rank of Sorting Assistant. He proved the Sanction Order dated 21.08.2001 as Ex.PW1/A (earlier Ex.PW1/D3) whereby sanction was accorded by him for the prosecution of Sohan Pal Sharma @ Panditji, Sorting Assistant in New Delhi, Sorting Division.
PW2 ISWAR SINGH deposed about the procedure regarding the issuance and encashment of the KVPs.
PW3 ROOP CHAND Assistant Superintendent of Post Office, Foreign Post Office proved Post Office Savings Bank ManualII as Ex.PA which prescribes the rules regarding the issue, transfer & encashment of Kisan Vikas Patras.
PW4 A. KHARAKWAL was working as Director/Postal Services, Delhi Circle, New Delhi and accused K. M. Singh(present in the court) was working as a Postal Assistant under him. Accused Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma was working as SubPost Master at that time. He testified that he was competent to remove them from services being their Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 50 CC No. 01/10 disciplinary authority under CCS/CCA Rules which are applicable to employees of Postal Department. He proved the Sanction Order dated 31.08.2001 Ex.PW4/D1 whereby he had accorded sanction to prosecute accused K. M. Singh and Mahinder Singh @ Mahinder Verma.
PW5 - SUNIL KRISHAN NAGAR was running the firm M/s Data Pro Services at Rajender Place and he used to design as per the specification given by the customers. He identified accused K. M. Singh who came to his shop along with one another person for preparing Visiting Cards in his name. He also correctly identified accused Hari Narain Pal @ Neta as the person who accompanied him on that day by pointing out towards him. After the job, he handed over the visiting cards. He further stated that after one or two days they again came to his shop with the request for designing 34 designs of the various post offices for the post office requirements. They gave him rough sketch for preparing the designs of the stamp. He charged about 200/ to 250/. He prepared the designs and handed over the same on next day but he was unable to remember the name of the post offices whose designs were got prepared by him.
PW6 MANMOHAN SINGH working as a Senior Manager in Oriental Bank of Commerce, Sarvpriya Vihar, New Delhi in the year 1999 when he was directed by a Senior officer to visit CBI office. He visited the CBI office where he met Inspector Balasubramaniyam. Twothree other persons were also sitting there. He correctly identified accused Manoj Kumar @ Tinku who had given his specimen writings and signatures marked as S284 to S326 on number of sheets. He proved all the sheets as Ex.PW6/A1 to Ex.PW6/A43.
Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 51 CC No. 01/10
PW7 JANARDAN SINGH was posted as Assistant
Superintendent(Complaint), Civil Line, Delhi54, North in the year 1997 and was dealing with a Complaint Branch, Mail Branch and FIV Branch. He stated that in FIV Branch, his duties was to circulate the circulars received from the office of Chief Post Master, General, Delhi and circulate other circulars to different post offices under the Administration control of Delhi, North Division. The Post Offices are required to maintain a register containing the details of such circulars as per the rule 43 of Savings' Bank Manual PartII. He proved the two circulars FI Mscl. 199798 dated 7.11.1997 which was issued on the basis of letter no. INV/1810/97 dated 15.10.1997 received from CPNG, Delhi CircleI, New DelhiI and INV/1812/96Vig. dated 15.10.1997 received from APNG and one Delhi Circle, New Delhi as Ex.PW7/A & B respectively. Vide these circulars, encashment of KVPs no. 31BB no. 1 to 60,000 was directed to be stopped. similarly, he proved the cyclostyle copy of another circular no. F IV/Constructions/97 dated 16.12.1997 issued on the basis of letter no. INV/GMisc.96 dated 11.11.1997 APNG, INV, PNG Assam Circle and INV as Ex.PW7/C which contains all the details of stolen KVPs. This circular was received by the Nirankari Colony Post Office as it bears the stamp of the said post office.
PW8 DEVENDER KUMAR was posted in the Dadri Post Office since 1985. He knew accused Hari Narain Pal and Sohan Pal Sharma and correctly identified both of them in the court by pointing out towards them. He stated that he knew accused Hari Narain Pal through one Ram Niwas who had introduced him in November 1996. Ram Niwas was E.D Packer and was posted in the post office Suraj Pur during the said period. Ram Niwas Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 52 CC No. 01/10 while introducing accused (Neta) with him told to him that he (Neta) was his (Ram Niwas) man and that he should take care of him as and when needed.
It is testified that accused H.N.Pal @ Neta accompanied by Sohan Pal Sharma and one another person came to Post Office at about 8.30/9.00 PM. They asked him to bring them water. He gave them water and they sat down in the compound of the Post Office and he went inside the Post Office. These people then again came inside the Post Office and took him outside and made him also bring some liquor though, he was somewhat unwilling. It is also testified that when he became somewhat intoxicated, though not unconscious, these people then took out the keys of the main entrance of the post office. He voluntarily stated that the keys of the safe of the Post Master used to be kept by the post master himself. He also stated that one of the abovesaid three accused then kept sitting with him and two of them went inside the post office. He cannot say now as to which two of the three had got into the post office. He heard some sound of stamping from inside the post office which continued till 2/2½ hours. These people were having two bundles carrying some papers at that time when they left the post office which they did not have at the time of their entries in the post office. It is further stated that while leaving the post office, the said three persons told him not to disclose anybody about their visit and also threatened him that in case he did so, they would see him. The abovesaid two accused and their third companion had come in a maruti car to the post office and they left in the same vehicle.
It is further stated that when he regained his full senses, he went inside the post office and saw one Date Stamp lying on the table and other stamps also kept in an open box on the same table. He then switched off Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 53 CC No. 01/10 the light, locked the post office and narrated this incident to Post Master Sh.V.P.Pal on the next morning who told him that he should inform him in case the said people again visit the post office and that he would then take the necessary action. Thereafter, the witness turned hostile.
On being cross examined by Ld. PP for CBI, he stated that the statement was recorded by the IO. It is admitted as correct that he had told in Ex.PW8/A that Netaji carried 34 bundles. However, he cannot say whether these contained KVPs as these were wrapped in a newspaper. During the cross examination on behalf of accused K. M. Singh, he stated that liquor was taken by him and the said two accused by sitting in the open compound of the post office. They took liquor for about half an hour. He became unconscious after 57 minutes of finishing the liquor, he voluntarily stated. However, he knew that keys were taken out from his pocket and he could feel the actions around him as he was not fully unconscious. His condition so remained for about 2/2½ hour. Liquor was taken by them including me 56 steps away from the entrance door of the post office.
PW9 - LALA RAM BHARTI was posted in the Post Office, Lodhi Road since 1977. He knew Sh.Ram Kumar Paliwal who was also employed in his division as well as Hari Narain Pal @ Neta and K. M. Singh. He further stated that once, in the year 1996, Ram Kumar Paliwal came to his office with accused Hari Narain Pal and one another person. The said Ram Kumar Paliwal showed him a printed sample slip and asked him whether such slips could be made available to him. He told Ram Kumar Paliwal that in case these are there in his office, these can be given to him.
Then, he took said Ram Kumar Paliwal inside the room of the Post Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 54 CC No. 01/10 office, Lodhi Road, New Delhi where orderly N.K.Joshi was on duty. He also stated that he asked orderly Joshi to give similar slips after showing him the sample slips given by said Paliwal to him. Peon N. K. Joshi made search for such slips and handed over two booklets containing such slips to Ram Kumar Paliwal. He(Lala Ram Bharti) then accompanied Ram Kumar Paliwal to their vehicle parked outside the Post Office, had some cold drinks with Paliwal and accused Netaji and Paliwal left along with Slip Booklets in that building. He also stated that the other man who had accompanied Ram Kumar Paliwal was somewhat having dark complexion. It is further testified that 1520 days after the aforesaid visit, accused Hari Narain Pal @ Neta accompanied with Ram Kumar Paliwal and the same other person again came to his office at Lodhi Road Post Office. On the asking of Ram Kumar Paliwal, he got them 23 more booklets containing the aforesaid slips which they took away with them. He specifically stated that accused K. M. Singh did not come to the Post Office for taking the booklets of the slips along with Ram Kumar Paliwal. Thereafter, he was declared hostile.
On being cross examined by Ld. PP for CBI, he stated that his statement was recorded by the CBI. In Ex.PW9/B(statement made U/s 164 Cr.P.C) he stated that Ram Kumar Paliwal had told him about the accompanying of three persons that they were Post Office agents and they needed NSC related booklets. He was cross examined by Ld. Counsel Sh.R.L.Dhingra for accused K. M. Singh and he stated that he knew accused K. M. Singh (present in the court) since the last 1520 years but by face only as being a postal employee.
PW10 - NAND KUMAR JOSHI joined the postal department on 1.4..1984 on daily wages at Maujpur Post Office, Delhi. He remained posted in Lodhi Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 55 CC No. 01/10 Road Post Office in the year 1993 as Packer on daily wages and he was looking after the work of the store of Lodhi Road Post Office. Sh. Suresh Kumar was the Incharge of the store at that time. Sh. Lala Ram Bharti was posted there as Postal Clerk. He further stated that somewhere in the year 1996, Sh.Lala Ram Bharti asked for providing him Identity Slip booklets. It is testified that at that time, he was not having any knowledge about the Identity Slip Booklets, therefore he asked Lala Ram Bharti to show sample. It is further testified that he found the said Identity Slip booklets in the store kept as defective documents which were actually not in use in the said post office and the same were not entered in the stock register. It is also testified that within a span of one month, he supplied four booklets to Lala Ram Bharti who told him at the time of taking the said booklets that these are required by some agent of the post office who were private persons. It is also testified that he was invited by Lala Ram Bharti to share the drink with him but he refused.
PW11 MANOHAR LAL RAM was posted as SubPost Master at Panipat City Post office during the period 5.4.1997 to 31.3.2002 till the date of his Superannuation. He proved the seizure memo Ex.PW11/A vide which he had handed over the documents mentioned at serial no. 1, 2 & 3 on 27.8.1999. Prior to him, Sh.Gulshan Kumar Thukral was the Sub Post Master at Panipat City Post Office and he had taken charge from him. He also deposed about the procedure of purchasing the Kisan Vikas Patras which is a saving instrument issued by Government of India through Post Offices. Usually Sub Post Offices receives blank KVPs from the Head Post Office and the same are entered in the Stock Register maintained in the Sub Post Office for this purpose. He proved the Stock Register of KVPs, NSCs and IVPs of Panipat City Post Office pertaining to the period 1.3.1989 to Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 56 CC No. 01/10 1.4.1994 as Ex.PW11/B. He also proved the Register Guard Book of Panipat City Post Office for the period 19.5.1993 to 14.12.1993 & 15.12.1993 to 26.5.1994 with the registration no. 1201 to 1400 in the first register and 1401 to 1600 in the second register as Ex.PW11/C & Ex.PW11/D respectively. He proved the relevant entry on page no. 192 encircled in red regarding the series no.12BB968402 as Ex.PW11/B1. This KVP was received in the lot of hundred KVPs bearing serial no. 12BB968401 to 12BB968500 in the denomination of Rs.5000/ on 14.10.1993. On 17.11.1993 only one KVP in the denomination of Rs. 5000/ bearing serial no. 12BB968403 was issued to Sh.Kamruddin Ahmad vide registration no. 1637.
After having seen all the Kisan Vikas Patras in question and related Identity Slips, he stated that KVPs and identity slips are purported to have been issued from the Panipat City Sub Post Office, but, infact neither the KVPs nor the identity slips relating thereto were issued from the said Post Office as the same do not bear the signature of Sh.Gulshan Kumar Thukral, the then Sub Post Master. In his testimony, he has also given the details of those KVPs purporting to have been issued from post office Panipat City, but, for the sake of brevity, I am not inclined to write here.
On seeing the KVPs in the denomination of Rs.5000/ bearing Sl. no. 31BB010501 to 31BB010505 Ex.PW11/E1 to 11/E5 in the name of Sh.S.C.Jain, bearing registration no. 750 dated 17.11.1993 and after tallying the numbers of the KVPs from the stock register of Panipat City Post Office Ex.PW11/B, he stated that signature made on behalf of "Up Dak Pal" are not of Sh.Gulshan Kumar Thukral's on these KVPs. He could not identify the signature in question.
As stated earlier, I am not inclined to refer to the particulars of the Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 57 CC No. 01/10 remaining KVPs in respect of which the witness has given similar description.
After having seen the guard file register of Panipat City Post Office Ex.PW11/C, he stated that on 18.11.1993 only one KVP bearing Sl.no. 12BB968404 for Rs.5000/ was issued to Shobha Taneja which was discharged on 21.5.1999 vide application Ex.PW11/C1. He further stated in the stock register, the issuance of the said KVP through application Ex.PW11/C1 which was reflected vide entry Ex.PW11/B3.
PW12 KRISHAN MADAN SINGH - joined as Technician GradeIII in Northern Railways at Ghaziabad. He correctly identified Kishan Madhav Singh accused present in the court by saying that he is his elder brother. However, he resides in the separate flat. He proved the notice received from the CBI for the production of documents mentioned at serial no. 1 to 5 as Ex.PW12/A. The said notice was replied to S.P., CBI, SIUIX, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi and proved the same as Ex.PW12/B. He proved the original sale deed(14 pages) in respect of the property bearing no. K127, Pratap Vihar, Ghaziabad as Ex.PW12/C. He proved the site plan of the said plot as detailed above as Ex.PW12/D. He proved the sale deed executed between Ghaziabad Development Authority(GDA)(Seller) and him(Purchaser) as Ex.PW12/E. He proved the Ikrarnama in respect of the flat no. G331 A, Pratap Vihar, Ghaziabad which was purchased by him in his own lane as Ex.PW12/F. He stated that although the photograph of his wife is pasted on the sale deed as purchaser which appears that the name of his wife was omitted due to typing mistake. The General Power of Attorney of the said property which is in his name proved as Ex.PW12/G, he proved the letter dated 18.5.1999 from GDA in respect of the property K127, Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 58 CC No. 01/10 Pratap Vihar, Ghaziabad as Ex.PW12/H. He proved the letter dated 18.5.1999 from the GDA as Ex.PW10/I(to be checked from the original). He proved the letter dated 20.5.1999 from GDA for taking possession of plot no. K127 as Ex.PW12/J. He stated that payments were made for the purchase of this property by him and his source of income was from agricultural land besides the same from his salary. His wife is employed with Golden Forest India Ltd. Her savings were also used for the purchasing of the said flat and details of his savings are mentioned in the letter already Ex.PW12/B. He had also received a sum of Rs.3 Lacs in the month of January from Sh.Keshav Pratap Singh, the elder brother of his father. He had also received a sum of Rs.1.5 Lacs from his father in law after marriage but he did not receive any payment from his elder brother K.M.Singh for the purchase of the property in his name as well as in the name of his wife. (original of the above referred documents are available in CC no. 17/02 and photocopies of these documents are exhibited in this case).
PW13 RAVINDER KUMAR LAL was posted as ASP Investigation in the office of Chief Post Master, General, Patna from the month of August 1988 and he remained posted there till 12.03.2001. He deposed about the procedure for the procurement of valuable securities namely KVPs, National Savings Certificates etc. He proved a letter dated 7.10.1999 (Original Seen from CC no. 17/02) signed by S. Haque, DPS Headquarter, Patna as Ex.PW13/A. After having seen the proforma prepared by him and Sh.Manish Singh, APNG, investigation and Vigilance circle, Patna(8 pages), he stated that this proforma is for the period 23.3.1990 to 29.4.1999 in which short deliveries of the security papers were reported by the CSD Office, Patna. The said proforma in eight pages is Ex.PW13/B(Original in Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 59 CC No. 01/10 CC no. 17/02). Letter dated 30.12.1996 to Sh.Vasudev Prashad, APNG(Vigilance & Investigation) Office of CPNG, Bihar Circle by G.Murahari and letter dated 5.7.1999 to Sh.Salim Haque by the Dy. Commission of Police, Detective Department, Lal Bazar, Kokatta were the enclosure of Ex.PW13/A. He stated that loss of short supply is reported in the delivery of security papers, the Office of Chief Post Master, General, Patna informed through circulars regarding the loss of said instruments in the Post Offices all over India.
PW14 CHITRAMAL VERMA was posted as Senior Superintendent of Post Office New Delhi, South East Division in the year 1999. The Post Office situated at Hari Nagar, Ashram Chowk was within the South East Division. He proved the photostate copy of the suspension order of accused K. M. Singh Ex.PW14/A(Original seen in CC no. 19/02).
After having seen the original seizure memo dated 26.10.1999 from the file CC no. 19/02, he proved the photostate copy of the seizure memo as Ex.PW14/B. Vide seizure memo Ex.PW14/B, original of suspension letter Ex.PW14/A was given to the CBI. This order was passed pursuant to a letter of Vigilance Department informing that accused Kishan Madhav Singh remained in police/judicial custody for more than 48 hours. He was arrested in a fraud case pertaining to Hari Nagar, Ashram Chowk Post Office, New Delhi.
PW15 MAHENDER PAL SHARMA was a property dealer having his office at E284, MIG, Pratap Vihar, Ghaziabad. He stated that on receipt of the notice U/s 91 Cr.P.C issued by Inspector of CBI, Vinod Kumar Pandey, he wrote a letter to Inspector V.K.Pandey on 27.6.1999 which is proved as Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 60 CC No. 01/10 Ex.PW15/A(Original seen in CC no. 19/02). Vide letter Ex.PW15/A, he narrated the details of the transaction in respect of property no. K127, Pratap Vihar, Ghaziabad and G331, Pratap Vihar, Ghaziabad. The photostate copy of the notice U/s 91 Crpc also stands proved Ex.PW15/B(Original seen in CC no. 19/02).
PW16 RAVINDER SINGH NIRWAL identified accused Sunil Kumar as his brotherinlaw(Husband of his sister). He had handed over a passport Ex.PW16/A to the CBI on 15.10.1999 after having taken it from the wife of Sunil Kumar vide a receipt memo Ex.PW16/B. PW17 NISSAR AHMAD was receptionist in the Berlington Hotel, Vidhan Sabha Marg, Lucknow, U.P. in the year 1990. He proved the seizure memo dated 10.08.1999 as Ex.PW17/A vide which he had given Visitors Occupancy Register of the said hotel pertaining to the period 4.8.1995 to 1.7.1999 to Inspector of CBI Sh.V. K. Pandey. He stated that register is maintained for recording of details of the visitors and their stay in the hotel. The said register is proved as Ex.PW17/B. After having perused the said register, he stated that accused K. M. Singh visited and stayed in the hotel Berlington on 11.1.1996, 23.4.1996, 24.4.1996, 29.7.1996, 15.6.1997, 27.6.1997 & 14.10.1997. Visitors are asked to make entry in the register themselves. After having seen the entry for the date 11.1.1996, he stated that a person namely K. M. Singh had arrived in his hotel along with one more person. The entry stands proved as Ex.PW17/B1 which was made by the person whose name was K. M. Singh. Similarly, entries for the date 23.4.1996 as Ex.PW17/B2, 24.4.1996 as Ex.PW17/B3, 29.7.1996 as Ex.PW17/B4, 15.6.1997 as Ex.PW17/B5, 27.6.1997 as Ex.PW17/B6 & Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 61 CC No. 01/10 14.10.1997 as Ex.PW17/B7 which were made by the person whose name was K. M. Singh in the register Ex.PW17/B. Witness identified the accused K. M. Singh by pointing out towards him. But further stated that since long time has elapsed, hence he is not sure if he is the same person who used to visit his hotel.
PW18 NITYANAND JHA was a property dealer and commission agent. After having seen a notice dated 27.6.1999 which was served upon him by the CBI, he proved the photostate copy of the notice Ex.PW18/A(original seen in CC no. 16/02). He was running his business from E819, MIG, Pratap Vihar, Ghaziabad. He identified accused Kishan Madhav Singh by saying that he was working in the Post Office and was placed under suspension. K.M.Singh requested him(Nityanand Jha) that he intended to work with him in the Sale/Purchase of houses located at Ghaziabad and he would pay 2% commission to him in case he brings any party for the sale & purchase. On 20.4.1999, one HIG house bearing no.G331, Pratap Vihar, Ghaziabad was purchased by Krishan Madan Singh for Rs.4 Lacs who was working in Railway and is real brother of accused K.M. Singh after obtaining 2% commission. The payment of Rs. 4 lacs towards the purchase price of the house and 2% commission thereof was paid by Krishan Madan Singh. He had given this fact in writing to the investigation officer and photocopy of the said letter is Ext.PW18/B (original seen in CC no. 16/02).
PW19 VIRENDER SINGH TYAGI identified accused Sanjeev Kumar as his brotherinlaw. He proved the seizure memo Ext.PW19/A dated 16.10.1999 whereby the driving licence Ext.PW19/B of accused Sanjeev Kumar @Kaka after having taken from the house of accused was given to Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 62 CC No. 01/10 the Insp. V.K. Pandey. (original thereof seen from CC No. 16/02.) PW20 H.C. SHARMA was posted as InspectorCBI Bani Scam & Fraud Cell, New Delhi in 1999. He was investigating CBI case in respect of stolen KVPs from Patna junction railway station belonging to 46CC series, 9,60,000 to 10000000. He had collected the FIR no. 29/98 dated 24.02.1998 registered with GRP junction, Patna along with its annexures during the aforesaid investigation. One photocopy of the said FIR along with annexures thereof was given to Sh. V.K. Pandey, the then Inspector in CBI, SIUIX, New Delhi in case RC1(E)/99 CBI SIU vide seizure memo dated 22.11.1999. He proved the photostat copy of the said seizure memo alongwith its annexures viz., copy of FIR no. 29/98 dated 24.02.1998, complaing dated 23.02.1998 for the said FIR and one annexure showing the details of KVPs stolen from Patna Junction Railway Station as Ext.PW20/A collectively.
PW21 RAM KUMAR PALIWAL stated that he joined Nizamuddin post office in the year 1974 as Postman. Thereafter, he joined the Defence Headquarter Post Office behind Rashtrapati Bhawan. He correctly identified the accused K.M. Singh as colleague during his tenure in the said post office. Ram Kumar Paliwal stated that accused K.M. Singh was posted prior to his posting in the said post office. He also knew Lala Ram Bharti as postal employee posted in the Lodhi Road Head post office in 1996 was known to him since 1974 when he was preparing salaries of the employees of post office Hazrat Nizamuddin and Andrewz Ganj while working as Accounts Clerk. Neither he introduced K.M. Singh with Lala Ram Bharti in the month of June, 1996 nor he visited with him to meet Lala Ram Bharti at Lodhi Road Post Office. Thereafter, he was declared hostile.
On being cross examined by Ld. PP, he stated that he knew accused Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 63 CC No. 01/10 K.M. Singh very well since 1991 when they were posted together in the Defence Headquarter Post Office till 1996. He is aware about the existence and use of Identity Slip Booklets in the post office. Identity slips are issued by the Post Master at the request of purchaser of KVPs or National Savings Certificate so that purchaser of NSC/KVP may encash the same from any post office in India. Accused K.M. Singh did not make any request to him for the arrangement of identity slip booklet in the month of June, 1996. PW 22 Dr. R.SHARMA Assistant Government Examiner of Questioned Documents, Office of GEQD, Sector36A, Chandigarh deposed that the documents received on 12.12.2000 for the examination through S.P.CBI, SIUIX, New Delhi through letter no. 17080/RC1(e)/99 SIUIX dated 12.12.2000 along with the questioned documents and the standard documents for his opinion regarding handwriting and signatures of the accused persons. He proved his report as Ext.PW15/1 and his reasons as Ext.PW15/3. It is pertinent to note that these exhibits were put on these documents in CC no. 13/08. (For sake of convenience to this court, its photocopy had been kept in this file.) PW23 BALASUBRAMANYAM was posted as Inspector in SIUIX, Branch of CBI at New Delhi. Inspector R.L.Yadav, Inspector V. K. Pandey, Inspector Rajesh Chahal were posted with him in that branch those days. Sh.V.K. Pandey, Inspector was the investigating officer of this case. Part investigation of this case was conducted by him. He took specimen writing of some of the accused persons. On 1.7.1999 he took specimen hand writing of accused Laxman Prashad on 74 sheets. He proved the photostate copy of the specimen writings as Ex.PW23/1 to 23/74 (original of which are placed in CC no. 19/02). All original sheets of specimen writings marked as S546 to S619 bearing his signatures on all pages which were Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 64 CC No. 01/10 taken in presence of Laxmi Narayan Sakra of Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Delhi. Accused Laxman Prashad had given his specimen writings voluntarily in CBI office. He identified accused Laxman Prashad present in the court. After obtaining his specimen writings, he handed over those writings to Inspector V. K. Pandey.
PW25 RAM NIWAS was working as Packer in Post office, Surajpur, Greater Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar in 1996 and was known to Sri Niwas of his village who was also working as Packer in Postal Department at Gol Dak Khana, Delhi. He also introduced Davinder Kumar, Chowkidar with said Sri Niwas for providing him help.
PW 26 AJAY KUMAR GAUTAM was running a workshop in the name and style of M/s Pappu Motors at Jhugi Jhopri near Mata Colony, Sector 12, Vijay Nagar, Ghaziabad in the year 1999 and he used to undertake the job of Denting/painting etc. He had further testified that a phone call was received by him. He further testified that two persons came to him and gave him Rs.10,000/ for denting and painting.
PW 27 G.S. YADAV in the year 199899 was working as Public Relation Officer at Jungpura PO and had conducted inquiry in respect of fraudulent KVPs connected with Jangpura PO. K.M. Singh the then Postal Assistant was involved in the said matter in which he inquired and gave a report. PW 28 H.R. VERMA had deposed about the charge sheet issued by him in departmental proceedings to accused KM Singh on the allegation of fraudulent encashment of KVPs and IVPs.
PW 34 ALOK PANDEY He deposed that he was working as Sr.Superintendent of Post Offices in the Delhi, North Division, in the year 1998. he testified that during his tenure in Delhi there was some Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 65 CC No. 01/10 fraudulent encashment of some KVPs at Mangol Puri Post Office. He deputed his subordinate staff to make an inquiry. Such inquiry was placed before him and therefore an FIR was lodged. He proved his complaint dt. 31.07.1998 Ext.PW34/A. PW 35 INSP. V.K. PANDEY deposed that during the year 1999 he was posted as Inspector of Police in SIUIX Branch of CBI at CGO Complex, New Delhi. He was entrusted with an investigation of this case. He further deposed that initially he had conducted searches at various places in Delhi. During the course of investigation, he had collected/seized the documents from various departments/persons, recorded the statements of witnesses and after completion of investigation sanction for prosecution of Govt. officials accused in this case was obtained from the competent authority. He had proved the specimen signatures of accused Hari Narayan Pal @Neta, Laxman Prasad, K.M.Singh, Manoj Kumar, Mahinder Singh Verma, Sunil Kumar, Rohtash Kanwar, Sanjeev Kumar. He further stated that at the time of investigation in a case regarding fraudulent encashment of KVPs in respect of Mangolpuri Post Office, it was disclosed to him by all the accused persons that fraudulent KVPs have also been encashed from Nirankari Colony, Post Office also including other Post Office. Accordingly, he contacted the Vigilance Department of the Post Office and further investigation was carried out by him in that regard. During the course of investigation with respect to Colony Post Office he seized the KVPS, which were subject matter of this case and he also seized other relevant documents and record and the same were cited at the time of filing of the chargesheet in this case. He further recorded the statement of witnesses. PW 35 Insp. V.K. Pandey further stated that during the course of Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 66 CC No. 01/10 investigation, he had received a letter Ex. PW35/A176 from Sub Postmaster, Dadri (Ghaziabad) in respect of receipt of KVPs, Sl. Nos. 15CC441801 to 15CC441900 for denomination of Rs.10,000/ and he had proved the letter dt. 12.12.2000 of Smt. S. Sundari Nanda (Ext.PW16/T in CC No. 13/08), the then Superintendent of Police, CBI, SIUIX, New Delhi vide which questioned documents/standard documents were sent to the laboratory of GEQD, Shimla. PW35 had also proved the forwarding letter dt. 25.07.2001 (Ext.PW15/2 in CC No. 13/08), GEQD opinion was sent to SP, CBI, SIU IX, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi vide which GEQD opinion was received by the SP, CBI, SIUIX from Sh. Amar Singh, the then GEQD, Shimla. Opinion (already exhibited Ext.PW15/1 in CC no. 13/08 running into 29 pages) was received and reasons (Ext.PW15/3 in CC No. 13/08) was also received from the GEQD, Shimla. PW 35 Insp. V.K. Pandey further proved a letter dt. 24.07.2001 (Ext.PW16/V in CC No. 13/08) vide which Sh. Khalil Ahmad, Inspector was authorized by Smt. S. Sundari Nanda, the then SP for collecting the original documents from the GEQD Shimla.
PW 35 Insp. V.K. Pandey also proved a receipt dt. 13.12.2000 (Ext.PW16/U in CC No. 13/08) of GEQD Shimla vide which original documents were deposited by Insp. Rajesh Chahel. PW 35 Insp. V.K. Pandey also proved a notice u/s 91 CrPC dt. 27.07.1999 (D63) (Ext.PW9/A in CC No. 13/08) vide which he had asked Sh. Dinesh Chander Verma, Sub Post Master, Dadri for production of documents mentioned therein. PW 35 Insp. V.K. Pandey further deposed that during the course of investigation, he had issued a notice u/s 91 CrPC dt. 27.07.99(already exhibited as Ext.PW9/A) to Sh. Dinesh Chandra Verma, Sub Post Master, Dadri requiring him to produce the purchase application guard file for the period 01.10.93 to Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 67 CC No. 01/10 01.12.93 and other documents mentioned therein and the same were received. The documents mentioned in the notice Ext.PW9/A from point 1 to 7 were received vide seizure memo dt. 29.07.1999 Ext.PW9/B (D70). The said documents were seized by by Insp. S. Balasubramaniam from one Sh. Dinesh Chandra Verma, Sub Post Master, Dadri Post Office, Ghaziabad Division. He had also proved the application form for the purchase of KVPs which were received vide seizure memo Ext.PW9/D. The said application forms were placed from running serial no.'s 1 to 102 Ext.PW35/X1 to X102.
PW 35 Insp. V.K. Pandey also proved the sample seal of Sub Post Master Dadri Ext.PW9/F. One page receipt showing receiving of KVP of the denomination of Rs. 10,000/ bearing serial no. 15CC 441801 to 900 (total 100 KVPs) Ext.PW35/A176. Stock register of KVPs, NSC and IVP for the period 01.03.89 to 01.04.1994 Ext.PW11/B. He also deposed that during the investigation he visited PO Dadri Ghaziabad and obtained specimen impressions of official seal pertaining to various dates and proved the specimen seal impression bearing running page no. 1,3,4 Ext.PW35/A177, Ext.PW9/G,Ext.PW18/G and rest of the specimen seal impression (Ext.PW35/A178 to Ext.PW35/A204).
During the course of investigation, PW 35 Insp. V.K. Pandey had correctly recorded the statement of PW8 Devender Kumar, PW9 Lala Ram Bharti, PW21 Ram Kumar Paliwal, PW33 Dharam Pal and Sh. Devender Kumar, Sh. Lala Ram Bharti, Sh. Ram Kumar Paliwal got recorded their statements u/s 164 CrPC. The said statements stands proved as Ext.PW36/A32, Ext.PW36/A33 & Ext.PW36/A34 in CC No. 07/09. During the course of investigation, he seized the book containing the applications for purchase of KVPs( D72) & (D73) Ext.PW11/C & Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 68 CC No. 01/10 Ext.PW11/D. PW 35 Insp. V.K. Pandey stated that after completion of investigation, he sent the investigation report to the competent authority for obtaining sanction for prosecution against accused K.M. Singh, Sohan Pal Sharma and Mahinder Singh Verma. The sanction orders from the competent authority in respect of the aforesaid accused persons were received vide Ext.PW1/A (Ext.PW1/D3), Ext.PW4/D1 & Ext.PW4/1/D3.
PW 35 Insp. V.K. Pandey had proved the FIR of case RC 1E99, SI U9 dated 8.2.1999 which was registered under the signatures of Sh. Arun Kumar Gupta the then Superintendent of Police CBI SI U9 (already proved as Ex.PW16/Z in CC 13/08.) PW 35 Insp. V.K. Pandey further deposed that during the course of investigation, all the accused persons were arrested by him. After completion of investigation pertaining to Nirankari Colony Post Office, he filed charge sheet in the competent court of jurisdiction against the accused persons mentioned in the charge sheet.
PW 36 SH. RAMESH KUMAR RAMANIA deposed that he was running a shop of country made liquor in Jakkan Pur. One Sh.Bharat, Naresh and Bengali used to buy liquor from him shop. Hence, he knew them. Bharat and Bengali gave him some packets and asked him to give it to Anwar. He took the packets to Anwar and gave him those packets and in turn, he gave him total of Rs.2 lakhs. Packets were 12 to 13 in number. These packets were containing some red coloured papers. Anwar also gave him Rs. 25,000/ to bring some more packets but he did not bring the packets and returned the money to Anwar. Bharat never used to hand over the packets to Anwar as he was afraid of Police. Ranjeet was the staff of Anwar. He used to inform him about the requirement of the packets. He further deposed that the packets which he handed over to Anwar were containing Kisan Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 69 CC No. 01/10 Vikas Patras and the same were in the denomination of Rs.10,000/ each. PW 37 SH. NARESH PRASHAD deposed that in the year 1999, Bharat took him to the shop of Ramesh, he had carried some articles wrapped in cloth and after reaching at a shop Ramesh Ramania asked him to take out some papers, he did accordingly which were in red colour for this, Bharat gave him Rs.200/as fare.
144. After concluding the prosecution evidence, all the accused persons were examined u/s 313 CrPC. Accused Sunil Kumar had examined expert witness in his defence.
145. Accused Sunil Kumar (A6) examined DW1 Sh. Syed Faizal Huda as defence witness, who is a handwriting expert. He opined that the specimen signatures and the disputed signatures (alleged to have been written by accused Sunil Kumar) do not match with each other. This accused placed on record one RTI application and its reply sent by Sh. Ravi Kant Handa, the concerned Public Information Officer. As per this reply, Sh. Gyanesh Kumar Jain, an employee of Punjab National Bank, Zonal Office, Agra never deputed with CBI office, New Delhi on 18.07.1999 and 20.07.1999. These were dates with specimen signatures of accused Sunil Kumar were taken by CBI. In view of this reply, I exercise my powers u/s 311 CrPC and examined Gyanesh Kumar Jain as a court witness. This witness supported the prosecution case that he had witnessed the taking of specimen handwriting of accused Sunil Kumar and Sanjeev Kumar. Accused Sunil Kumar wanted to summon Ravi Kant Handa as defence witness, but, in view of examination of Gyanesh Kumar, he stated that he did not want to examine Ravi Kant Handa, the concerned Public Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 70 CC No. 01/10 Information Officer who sent such reply and then he dropped this witness vide his statement recorded in the order sheet dated 05.05.2012. The other accused persons did not examine in witness in defence. Now I take up the case of each accused separately.
146. Evidence qua accused K. M. Singh (A1) Ld. Public Prosecutor has argued that PW5 Sh. Sunil Krishan Nagar has testified that from 1995 to 2000 he was running the firm M/s Data Pro Service at Rajender Place and that accused K. M. Singh and H. N. Pal had come to his shop requesting him for designing a few designs of various post offices for the Post Office Department. He testified that they gave rough sketch for preparing the designs of the stamps and that he charged about Rs.200/ to Rs.250/ and he prepared designs and handed over the same on next date. Ld. Public Prosecutor has drawn my attention to the testimony of PW37 Nisar Ahmad who has testified that accused K.M. Singh had stayed in Burlington Hotel, Vidhansabha Marg, Lucknow on 01.11.1996, 23.04.1996, 24.04.1996, 29.07.1996, 15.06.1996, 27.06.1997 and 14.10.1997. He also proved the relevant register of the hotel. Ld. Public Prosecutor submits that the testimony of this witness proves the prosecution case that he had gone to Lucknow to take the delivery of the stolen KVPs.
I have carefully considered the evidence of PW5 Sh. Sunil Krishan Nagar. Although the evidence of this witness shows that accused K. M. Singh came within accused H.N. Pal and got some stamps of Postal Department prepared and this evidence also creates serious doubts about the conduct of K.M. Singh about his involvement of this case but in absence of any further evidence to connect this accused with this crime, this sole Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 71 CC No. 01/10 evidence is not enough to nail the accused. Further, the evidence of stay of accused K.M. Singh in a hotel, as per PW37, leads the prosecution case nowhere. There is no evidence that K.M. Singh had taken any delivery of stolen KVPs in the said hotel. To my mind, the testimony of PW5 Sunil Krishan Nagar and the testimony of PW37 Nisar Ahmad though creates a grave suspicion on the conduct of accused K. M. Singh but this simple evidence is not enough to connect these accused persons with the crime. Therefore, I give benefit of reasonable doubt to accused K. M. Singh and acquit him.
147. Evidence qua accused Harish Chander (A2) Accused Harish Chander (A2) has expired and proceedings against him had already abated.
148. Evidence qua accused Sohan Pal Sharma/Panditji (A3) It is argued by Sh. Kedar Yadav, Ld. Defence Counsel that the specimen hand writing of accused Sohan Pal Sharma was taken by the Investigating Officer without the permission of the Magistrate and therefore the same is not admissible in evidence against him. There were divergent views of our own High Court on this issue but now in Bhupender Singh Vs. State, the full Bench of Delhi High Court consisting Hon'ble Chief Justice Deepak Mishra, Mr. Justice Anil Kumar and Mr. Justice Sanjiv Khanna, while deciding Criminal Appeal No. 1005/2008 (vide order dated 30.09.2011) upheld the view taken by the single judge of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Sunil Kumar @ Sonu Vs. State of NCT of Delhi (Criminal Appeal No. 446 of 2005 decided on 25.3.2010) and rejected the ratio of the decision of the Division Bench in Satyawan Vs. State (Criminal Appeal No. 34/2001 decided on 9.7.2009). In Satyawan Vs State, the Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 72 CC No. 01/10 Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court had held that taking specimen writing without the order of the court is not legal and would not be admissible in evidence against accused. In Bhupender Singh Vs. State the full Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi clearly held that the view expressed in the decisions namely Satyawan Vs State is not the correct view. Hence it is clear that the specimen hand writing can be taken from an accused by the Investigating Officer and same would be admissible in evidence even if such specimen hand writing had been taken by the Investigating Officer without permission of the Magistrate. Further, there is nothing on record to show that specimen handwriting of accused Sohan Pal Sharma was taken under coercion, threat or pressure. Therefore, the specimen handwriting has been given by the accused voluntarily.
Ld. Defence Counsel has argued that the recovery of NC 32 forms from his house are doubtful because the Investigating Officer has not been able to testify the names of the independent witnesses in whose presence the recovery was made. I disagree with his submissions. The Investigating Officer in CBI have to conduct the cases having voluminous documents and had to deal with a number of witnesses in various cases involving deeply entrenched conspiracies. If during his cross examination, Investigating Officer has been unable to tell the names of the independent witnesses, it is neither unnatural nor has an effect of throwing his testimony over board. But, at the same time, I would say that recovery of form NC 32 is not an evidence which is connecting this accused with the present crime.
It is further argued by Ld. Defence Counsel Sh. Kedar Yadav, Adv. for this accused that there is no evidence that he has been benefited from this crime and that prosecution has been unable to prove any motive for commission of these offences. I do not find any substance in these Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 73 CC No. 01/10 submissions. If there is evidence that an accused has been a part of conspiracy wherein forged KVPs had been encashed, the inescapable consequence would be that such accused has done so with a view to get wrongful gain to himself and wrongful loss to the government. Ld. Defence Counsel argues that neither any ingredient of section 467 IPC has been proved nor any ingredient of Section 468 IPC has been proved. It is argued that cheating is a necessary ingredient of the offences of forgery and since prosecution has been unable to prove that accused has cheated anyone, he cannot be convicted u/s 467 & 468 IPC. I disagree with his submissions. Forging the handwritten portion of KVPs in a large number of such KVPS itself shows that the forgery has been done with an intention to cheat the Government/Postal Authorities.
Ld. Defence Counsel has drawn my attention to Q.No. 18 of the statement u/s 313 CrPC and submitted that it has not been put to accused Sohan Pal Sharma that he had come to Dadri Post Office alongwith H.N.Pal.
I have seen Q.No. 18. In this question, it is specifically put to accused Sohan Pal Sharma that he had went away carrying two bundles of some papers from the post office. I am of the opinion that the role of accused Sohan Pal Sharma has been specifically mentioned in this question and even if there is some error, this is very minor. This piece of evidence is well understood by the accused. Moreover, while pointing out the error, the accused had an opportunity to explain this evidence.
Ld. Defence Counsel has also drawn my attention to Q.No. 108 and submits that no question is specifically put as to which were his specimen signatures and how the same tallied with which questioned documents. Similarly, it is submitted that Q.No. 191 is a common question put to all the accused persons. In this regard, I would say that it is a case of conspiracy Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 74 CC No. 01/10 and the evidence against the other accused persons is also an evidence against the present accused. Therefore, not only the specimen signatures of this accused but also the specimen signatures of all other accused persons had been referred to in this question.
Ld. Defence Counsel has also drawn my attention to Q.No. 222 submitting that as per this question the specimen signatures of Sohan Pal Sharma were taken in CC No. 13/08 which case has already been decided. It is submitted that since these specimen signatures were not taken in the present case bearing CC No. 01/10, therefore, this cannot be used against the present accused in this case.
Ld. PP submits that initially only one case was registered in which the specimen signatures were taken. Later on, these cases were saggregated in four cases post office wise, therefore, the specimen signatures were also sorted out relevant to each case.
I am of the opinion that there is no law which prohibits the prosecution from taking any material of one case and putting the same in another case. If a material of one case also forms a piece of evidence against an accused in another case, the same may be proved by the prosecution in other cases also.
Ld. Defence Counsel has drawn my attention to the specimen signatures Ext.PW15/A and submits that initially the Investigating Officer has written the name of Satish Pal Singh and thereafter he wrote Sohan Pal Sharma after cutting the name of Satish Pal Singh. I have seen the specimen signatures. On seeing the sheet Ext.PW15/A, it is clear that an inadvertent mistake has been corrected. It bears the signatures of Sohan Pal Singh at point A. It is pertinent to note that on further sheets Ext.PW15/A2 to Ext.PW15/A158 the signatures of Sohan Pal Sharma are Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 75 CC No. 01/10 present at point A of each sheet and perusal of the same would show that the signatures at point A on Ext.PW15/A and the other sheets are of the same person. Accused has nowhere shown or proved that the signatures on the specimen sheets at point A do not pertain to him. I point out that as per prosecution case these specimen signatures were taken in the presence of Gyanesh Kumar Jain. This witness was examined by me u/s 311 CrPC as a court witness and he had proved his signatures at point B on each sheet. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that prosecution has proved beyond doubt that the specimen handwriting of Sohan Pal Sharma was taken on these sheets. Even if there is some cutting on one sheet Ext.PW15/A, the same is inadvertent and is a correction of a mistake. Hence, no benefit of it can be given to the accused.
The CBI has taken sanction to prosecute this accused which has been duly proved by PW1 Sh. B.D.L. Srivastava, Senior Superintendent Post Offices. However, I am of the opinion that since accused Sohan Pal Sharma was not acting in discharge of his official duties while committing these forgeries, this sanction was not required.
I may add that PW8 Devender Kumar has testified as to how in the year 1996 accused Sohan Pal Sharma had come to Dadri post office alongwith accused H.N. Pal in the night and had been doing stamping with the postal stamps for a long period in the night. Ld. Defence Counsel has assailed the testimony of this witness submitting that he is a chowkidar in Dadri Post Office and as per his own testimony, he appears to be an accomplice in the crime and his testimony does not inspire confidence. Moreover, there is nothing on record to show that he made any complaint to any authority against accused Sohan Pal Sharma and accused H.N. Pal. I disagree with his submissions. PW8 has clearly testified that he was Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 76 CC No. 01/10 provided liquor by these two accused persons due to which he got intoxicated and thereafter they took the keys of the safe of the postmaster and one of these accused persons kept sitting with him and the others went inside the post office. He heard some sound of stamping from inside the post office which continued for about two hours. He also testified that they were three persons including the two accused persons named above and they were having two bundles carrying some papers at that time when they left the post office. There is nothing on record to show that PW8 was an accomplice in this offence. This witness appears to be fond of drinking and accused H.N. Pal and Sohan Pal took advantage of his weakness. It is argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that it is not clear as to actually what act was done by the accused persons. I disagree with his submissions. Accused Sohan Pal must explain as to why he had gone to Dadri Post Office in the night alongwith accused H.N. Pal and another person? As per testimony of PW8, this incident had taken place after November, 1996. The report of handwriting expert would show that the forged KVPs presented by accused H.N. Pal and Sohan Pal purported to have been issued from Dadri post office. It has been proved by prosecution that the KVPs, which have been connected with accused Sohan Pal and H.N. Pal by handwriting expert, were never issued from Dadri post office. It is pertinent to note that PW13 Ravinder Kumar Lal in his testimony has proved a proforma Ex.PW13/B (original of which is placed in the records of CC No.17/02). In this proforma, the numbers and the particulars of the KVPs of which open delivery was taken have been written. At page 5 the numbers of KVPs of 31BB series have been written. In other words, the KVPs of 31BB series, numbers of which have not been mentioned in this proforma, have been lost or stolen during transaction. It is pertinent to note that most of KVPs Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 77 CC No. 01/10 purportedly issued from post office Dadri are of 31 BB series shown to have been issued in the year 1993. The Investigating Officer PW35 has proved in his evidence that he had issued a notice under Section 91 CrPC (D63) Ex.PW9/A (in CC No. 13/08) dated 27.7.1999 to Sub Post Master, Dadri requiring him to produce the purchase application guard file for the period 1.10.1993 to 1.12.1993. Pursuant to this notice, all the forms of applications for the purchase of KVPs were seized during the investigation and the same were exhibited as Ex.PW35/X1 to X102. This evidence was put to the accused in question no. 216 of statement under Section 313 CrPC. The accused has feigned ignorance to this fact and it has not been specifically denied. The perusal of these purchase forms show that not even a single KVPs of 31 BB series was issued from Dadri Post Office. Therefore the facts that the open delivery of KVPs of 31 BB series was taken by the postal authorities and Dadri post office never issued any KVPs of 31 BB series during the aforesaid period proves beyond doubt that the persons who committed forgery on these KVPs knew that the same are stolen properties. At the cost of repetition, I again note that these purchase applications show the KVPs purchased by the customers during the period 1.10.1993 to 31.12.1993 and none of these KVPs, particulars of which are written on back side of these forms, are of 31 BB series. The forged KVPs purported to have been issued from Dadri Post Office bear the stamp of Dadri Post Office. These circumstances explain that PW8 was befooled by these accused persons and infact some type of forgery was being done with the stamps of the Dadri post office, when PW8 heard the sound of stamping. I may point that PW8 has testified that when he regained his senses, he went inside the post office and saw one date stamp lying on the table and other stamps also kept in an open box on the same table. The Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 78 CC No. 01/10 testimony of this PW8 not only shows that he is in conspiracy with other accused persons but also shows that it was a well executed conspiracy.
149. Now let me take the question of forgeries of the KVPs.
I have seen the KVP No.'s 31BB010141 to 31BB010200, 31BB013187 to 31BB013190, 31BB014282 to 31BB014291, 31BB014261 to 31BB014280, 31BB013901 to 31BB013930, 31BB013941 to 31BB014000, 31BB006901 to 31BB0106999, 31BB006101 to 31BB006200, 31BB006601 to 31BB0106900, 31BB006301 to 31BB006500, 31BB006221 to 31BB006300.
I have also seen the specimen signatures of accused Sohan Pal Sharma and I have seen the report of PW22 Dr. R.Sharma. The expert has dealt with the questioned handwriting on the KVPs on page 14,15,16 of his report Ext.PW15/1 and he has opined that the questioned handwriting on the body part on front portion has been written by the same person who has written the specimen handwriting S1 to S158. I have also seen the reasoning given by the expert on page 11 & 12 of Ext.PW15/3 (This is the exhibit number marked in CC no. 07/09) are reproduced as under:
"Inter se comparison of the standard writings reveals that they are freely written, show natural variations and have inter consistency among themselves. The questioned writings also exhibit these qualities similarly. They also agree in the general writing habits of movement, skill, speed, alignment, spacing, relative size and proportion of the letters and their combination, nature of commencing and terminal stroke, simplification etc. Both questioned and standard writings also agree in the minute and inconspicuous details of formation of letters and their combinations, some of such similarities in the individual writing habits are..... manner of execution of '7' '8' '9' etc.; manner of execution of English letter 'R' with the nature and location of its body part and finish; oval part of letter 'a' and Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 79 CC No. 01/10 manner of its joining with the succeeding letter 'j'; eyelet of letter 'e'; movement in the execution of letter 's'; staff of letter 'h' and its finish; movement in the execution of buckle of letter 'k'; combination of letter 'u' and 'm' in the word 'kumar'; bifurcation in the execution of the body part of letter 'r'; combination of letter 'r' and 'i' in the word 'Dadri'; manner of execution of commonly occurring figures such as '3' '5' '6' '9' etc. is observed similar in the questioned and standard. All the significant features as occurring in the questioned writings are found similar exemplified at one or the other place in the standard writings.
There is no divergence between questioned and standard writings and there is no sign of imitation in the production of the questioned writings. The above discussed similarities in the writing habits between the questioned and standard writings are significant and sufficient and will not accidentally coincide in writings of two different persons and when considered collectively lead me to the aforesaid opinion of common authorship."
No reason has been cited by Ld. Defence Counsel as to why the report of handwriting expert should be discarded by this court. On seeing these questioned documents and specimen, I fully agree with the report of the handwriting expert and I am of the opinion that prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the body part of 773 KVPs bearing no.'s 31BB010141 to 31BB010200, 31BB013187 to 31BB013190, 31BB014282 to 31BB014291, 31BB014261 to 31BB014280, 31BB013901 to 31BB013930, 31BB013941 to 31BB014000, 31BB006901 to 31BB0106999, 31BB006101 to 31BB006200, 31BB006601 to 31BB0106900, 31BB006301 to 31BB006500, 31BB006221 to 32B 006300 have been written by accused Sohan Pal Sharma. I hold that he is guilty of forging valuable security i.e. the above stated KVPs. This also proves that this accused was acting in collaboration with and in conspiracy with the offenders who had got these KVPs encashed and I therefore convict him u/s 120B IPC and for substantive offence u/s 467 IPC.
Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 80 CC No. 01/10 The fact that on the KVP, the body is written by one person and signatures of the recipient have been done by another person proving that the present accused was acting in conspiracy with the other accused persons.
150. Evidence qua accused Manoj Kumar (A4) Accused Manoj Kumar is the son of accused Sohan Pal Sharma. Apart from the conspiracy, it is alleged that he impersonated as Arun Kumar, holder of 499 KVPs bearing no.'s 31BB 013911 to 013930, 31BB013941 to 013980, 31BB014271 to 014280, 31BB014282 to 014291, 31BB010141 to 010200, 31BB006141 to 006180, 31BB006241 to 006260, 31BB006341 to 006380, 31BB006441 to 006500, 31BB006641 to 006680, 31BB006741 to 006780, 31BB006841 to 006940, 31BB006981 to 006999 amounting to Rs. 35,66,000/ at Nirankari Colony Post Office and thereby not only committed the forgery but also cheated the Postal Department. He has been charged u/s 419/420/467 and 471 IPC.
Sh. Kedar Yadav, Adv. for this accused has raised the same points, as in case of accused Sohan Pal Sharma. All those points have already been answered by me while discussing the role of accused Sohan Pal Sharma.
I have perused the signatures on the above mentioned KVPs and the expert opinion of PW22 as well as the specimen signatures (S284 to S356) of accused Manoj Kumar. The expert has given the following opinion which is reproduced as under:
"Inter se comparison of the standard writings reveals that they are freely written, show natural variations and have inter consistency among themselves. The questioned writings also exhibit these qualities similarly. They also agree in the general writing habits of movement, skill, speed, alignment, spacing, relative size and proportion of the letters and their combination, nature of commencing and terminal stroke, simplification Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 81 CC No. 01/10 etc. Both questioned and standard writings also agree in the minute and inconspicuous details of formation of letters and their combinations, some of such similarities in the individual writing habits are: peculiar nature and location of curvature in the execution of the body part of letter 'Sa'; commencement of letter 'Ta' with the nature and location of body part and finish; nature and movement in the execution of the body part of letter 'Ha'; peculiar nature and movement in the execution of start, body part as well as nature and location of finish; nature and location of medial body portion of letter 'Ra' with similar variation; manner of execution of letter 'Pa', 'Cha', 'Sha' etc. as well as nature and movement of strokes of commonly occurring figures such as '7', '5', '0', '1' were all observed to be similar with similar variation in the questioned and standard; manner of execution of the commonly occurring vowel sign 'Aakar', 'Ukar', 'Ookar', 'Ekar' etc. were also observed similar with similar variation; execution of letter 'Aa' nature and location of body curvature and manner of formation of loop at the base with similar variation; nature and location of medial diagonal stroke of letter 'Ma' is also observed similar with similar variation. All the significant features as occurring in the questioned writings are found similar exemplified at one or the other place in the standard writings.
There is no divergence between questioned and standard writings and there is no sign of imitation in the production of the questioned writings. The above discussed similarities in the writing habits between the questioned and standard writings are significant and sufficient and will not accidentally coincide in writings of two different persons and when considered collectively lead me to the aforesaid opinion of common authorship."
I am of the opinion that the expert has opined in a most objective and scientific manner. He has given his detailed reasons with which I do not find any ground to disagree. Accordingly, I am of the opinion that prosecution has established all the offences pressed against him beyond reasonable doubt. Since, he has forged the signatures of Arun Kumar as the holder of above stated KVPs, the only inference, which can be raised in such circumstances, is that accused Manoj Kumar himself presented these KVPs and got them encashed. In this manner, he not only impersonated as Arun Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 82 CC No. 01/10 Kumar but also cheated the Postal Department of huge amounts. The KVPs are valuable security and since he has forged the same, the offence u/s 467 IPC is also disclosed against him. The circumstance that the body of the KVP has been written by some other person and signed by some other person is a proof that he has conspired with other accused persons in commission of this offence. I may point out that his father Sohan Pal Sharma is also fully involved in this offence. I take the example of KVP no. 31BB014282 Ext.PW22/65. As per expert's (PW22) report, front portion i.e. Q12281 & Q12282 have been written by Sohan Pal Sharma and on its back side, Q12283 & Q12284 have been written by accused Manoj Kumar.
151. Evidence qua accused Hari Narain Pal @ Neta (A5) Sh. Hamid Ahmad, Adv. has argued that prosecution has not been able to prove that his specimen signatures were ever taken by the Investigating Officer. He has drawn my attention to the testimony of PW35 Insp. V.K. Pandey (Investigating Officer) dt. 10.11.2010. He has testified that the specimen signatures S825 to S838 of accused H.N. Pal were taken by Insp. R.L. Yadav of the same branch who was assisting him in this case. He further stated that the specimen signatures/handwritings S839 to S968 were taken by him. PW35 collectively proved the specimen signatures taken by Insp. R.L. Yadav as well as by himself as Ext.PW36/A. Ld. Public Prosecutor submits that no suggestion has been given by the accused denying his specimen signatures. It is further submitted that Insp. R.L. Yadav was assisting the main Investigating Officer i.e. PW35 Insp. V.K. Pandey and some sheets of the specimen signatures of accused H.N. Pal were taken by Insp. R.L. Yadav under the supervision of Insp. V.K. Pandey. I have considered the submissions and I am of the opinion that when a fact Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 83 CC No. 01/10 asserted in examinationinchief is not denied in cross examination, the same stands proved. Therefore, the taking of specimen signatures by R.L. Yadav can be said to be not disputed by accused H.N. Pal. A perusal of the Ext.PW28/B1 of CC No. 07/09 contains the specimen signatures of accused H.N. Pal from specimen sheet no. S825 to S838. However, the specimen signatures which were taken by the Investigating Officer V.K. Pandey are on specimen sheet S839 till the specimen sheet S968. All these specimen handwritings were taken by V.K. Pandey. Therefore, the specimen signatures taken by Insp. R.L. Yadav are only on a few sheets. The specimen signatures on the specimen sheets which are large in number were taken by V.K. Pandey. All these specimen sheets taken by Insp. V.K. Pandey have been exhibited as Ext.PW36/A. It is pertinent to note that all these original specimen signatures are the part of the documents of CC no. 07/09 pertaining to the frauds committed in post office Mangol Puri. Therefore, the same are lying in the box containing the documents of the said case. The Investigating Officer appearing as PW35 in this case has testified that he had taken these specimen signatures and this fact has not been denied by accused H.N. Pal anywhere, therefore, the specimen signatures of accused H.N. Pal have to be considered by this court. For the sake of convenience of this court, a photocopy of this document is taken on record. In such cases, the appropriate procedure should have been to give a fresh exhibit number to the copy of the specimen handwriting after comparing the same with the original and thereafter the original should have been sent to the document box of the concerned case. However, this irregularity does not have an effect of taking all these documents especially when the same are duly proved by the Investigating Officer by testifying those documents in his evidence.
Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 84 CC No. 01/10 I have seen the 80 KVPs no. 31BB 006101 to 31BB 006140, 31BB006601 to 006640, total amounting to Rs.5,68,000/. The receiver of these amounts has signed as 'Rajesh Kumar' on the back of these KVPs Ext.PW22/1070 to Ext.PW22/1109 and Ext.PW22/1110 to Ext.PW22/1145.
I have perused the expert's report. Last paragraph of 'page 27' and first paragraph of 'page 28' deals with these documents. It has been opined by the expert that on the backside of the KVPs in question, the signatures and handwriting tally with the specimen signatures/handwriting on S825 to S968. I have already discussed that S825 to S968 have been written by accused H.N. Pal.
I myself have seen and compared the specimen signatures with the questioned handwriting and fully agree with the opinion of the expert who has given detailed reasons in support of his opinion. The perusal of the expert's report would clearly prove that accused H.N. Pal had conspired with accused Sohan Pal Sharma. As an example, I take one KVP no. 31BB006139 Ext. PW22/1108. As per expert's (PW22) report, the handwriting on the front portion of this KVP at point Q14750 and at Q14751 tally with the handwriting of Sohan Pal Sharma; whereas on the back of this KVP, the handwriting at point Q14752 and the signatures of 'Rajesh Kumar' at Q14753 tally with the specimen handwriting and signatures of accused H.N. Pal. The signatures at point Q14753 shows that this signatures have been put as a token of receiving the cash after encashing the said KVP by the holder namely 'Rajesh'. I have already stated that this signature tallies with the specimen signatures of accused H.N. Pal. Same is the situation in large number of KVPs in question.
I also find that there is further evidence against accused H.N. Pal.
Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 85 CC No. 01/10 PW8 Devender Kumar is a chowkidar in Dadri Post Office. He testified that he was posted in post office Dadri since 1985 and that he knew accused H.N. Pal and Sohan Pal Sharma. He testified that accused H.N. Pal accompanied by accused Sohan Pal Sharma and one another person came to him in post office at about 8.30/9.00 p.m. and took him outside the post office and gave him some liquor due to which he became intoxicated. He testified that these persons took out the keys of the safe of the Post Office which used to be kept by the postmaster himself. He testified that one of those two persons went into the post office and he heard some noise of stamping from inside the post office which continued for more than two hours. He testified that these people were having two bundles carrying some papers and they left the post office. He testified that while leaving the post office, the said persons told him not to disclose anything about their visit to the post office. He testified that those persons left in a maruti car. When he gained his consciousness and went inside the post office, he saw one date stamp lying on the table and some other stamps kept in the open box on the same table. He testified that he narrated this incident to the Postmaster Sh. V.P. Pal next morning. Although, this witness has turned hostile on various points, but, in substance, this witness appears to be a truthful witness and there is nothing on record to show that he is testifying falsely. It appears from his testimony that this incident took place in the year 1996.
PW9 Lala Ram Bharti stated that in the year 1996 Ram Kumar Paliwal came to his office with accused H.N. Pal and one another person. The said Ram Kumar showed him a printed sample slip and asked him whether such slips could be made available to him. He toled orderly Nand Kishore Joshi to give similar slips and two such booklets were given to Ram Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 86 CC No. 01/10 Kumar Paliwal. After about 1520 days, accused H.N. Pal accompanied Ram Kumar Paliwal and some other person and on asking of Ram Kumar Paliwal, he got them 23 more booklets containing the above mentioned slips. In cross examination, he was unable to say as to whether the said slips were identity slip booklet or not, though, he was confronted with his statement u/s 161 CrPC. It is argued that nothing in this testimony connects him with the present crime. I disagree with this submission. Infact, PW10 Nand Kishore Joshi, orderly has testified that sometime in the last month of year 1996, Lala Ram Bharti asked him for supply of blank identity slip booklets and that he found the identity slip booklets in the store kept as defective documents and that they were not in use in out post office and therefore the same were not entered in the stock register. He testified that within a span of one month, he supplied four booklets to Lala Ram Bharti. A combined reading of testimony of PW9 and PW10 proves that they had supplied the booklets of identity slips to accused H.N. Pal and the persons accompanied him. Though, this may appear to be a very insignificant act on part of accused H.N. Pal, but , it must be remembered that fake identity slips were used in this case also and keeping in view the entire scenario, the act of illegally taking the identity slip booklets by H.N. Pal is an important part of the chain in the entire conspiracy. The criminal intentions are very much visible as to why he and accused Sohan Pal Sharma had gone to the post office Dadri and were doing the work of stamping throughout the night. I also refer to the testimony of PW5 Sunil Krishan Nagar who is running a business of preparing designs as per specifications during the period 1995 to 2000. He testified that accused K.M. Singh and accused H.N. Pal came to his shop and requested him to design 3 or 4 designs of various post offices for the post office department.
Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 87 CC No. 01/10 They also gave a rough sketch for preparing designs of the stamp. He testified that after charging his dues, he prepared the designs and handed over the same on next day. The testimonies of these witnesses namely PW5, PW8, PW9 and PW10 throws a light as to what accused H.N. Pal and Sohan Pal Sharma were upto. The conclusion is unmistakable. All this was being done to do the forgery in the KVPs and the identity slips. Therefore, I am of the opinion that prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that not only accused H.N. Pal was fully involved in the crime with the coaccused persons but also he had committed substantive offences u/s 467/419/420/471 IPC.
I may here point out that the above stated circumstances are also appearing against accused K.M. Singh, but, these circumstances fall short of the standard of proof required for convicting a person. On the other hand, the evidence of handwriting expert in respect of accused H.N. Pal and Sohan Pal Sharma coupled with the above discussed evidence has sealed their fate as definite scientific evidence has come on record against these accused persons.
152. Evidence qua accused Sunil Kumar (A6) Sh. Hamid Ahmad, Adv. for this accused argues that in this case no FIR was registered and the registration of the FIR is the starting point of investigation and unless FIR is registered no investigation can be carried out and no charge sheet can be filed. Ld. Defence counsel further argued that trial is vitiated because Section 219 CrPC lays down that when a person is accused of more than one offences of the same kind within a space of 12 months, he may be charged and tried at one trial for not more than three offences. It is argued that presentation of each KVP would amount for a separate offence and therefore CBI should have been filed Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 88 CC No. 01/10 separate charge sheet for three forged KVPs each. It is submitted that in the present case CBI has filed charge sheet in respect of 906 KVPs which has caused grave injustice to the accused.
I disagree with this submission. In the present case, it is one offence of conspiracy involving presentation of forged KVPs at various times. Therefore, it is appropriate to file one charge sheet in respect of all KVPs illegally encashed at one post office. Furthermore, the accused is assisted by very competent lawyer and the witness have been cross examined at length on every point, therefore, it cannot be said that any kind of injustice or prejudice is caused to the accused by putting all the KVPs in one case.
Ld. Public Prosecutor submits that one FIR was registered in this case and thereafter the charge sheets were bifurcated post office wise. Ld. Public Prosecutor submits that there is no need to register separate FIRs. I agree with Ld. Public Prosecutor. Registration of FIR is only a first information of a cognizable offence. Thereafter, during investigation more than one charge sheets can be filed depending upon various factors. The reasons for filing separate charge sheets may be many. For example, the same may be bifurcated period wise or jurisdiction wise or transaction wise or considering the roles of particular accused etc. In the present case, the stolen KVPs were presented in various post offices and the investigating agency in its wisdom has chosen to file separate charge sheets in respect of those forged KVPs which were presented and got encashed in a particular post office. Hence, it would be incorrect proposition of law to hold that for the frauds committed in each post office, CBI should have registered a separate FIR.
Ld. Defence Counsel has argued that the cognizance in the present case is bad. He has drawn my attention to the order sheet dated Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 89 CC No. 01/10 23.11.2001. It is submitted that in this order sheet, the court has nowhere stated that before taking cognizance he had perused the charge sheet and the documents. It is argued that therefore the cognizance itself was a mechanical act and was bad in law. It is further submitted that once cognizance is held to be bad in the eyes of law, all the proceedings become void and the entire trial gets vitiated.
I disagree with the submissions of Ld. Defence Counsel. When a court takes cognizance of the offence, it means that the application of mind by the court starts. It is not necessary that the court should specifically write as to what documents were perused while taking the cognizance. Section 461 CrPC clearly mentions as to what irregularities would vitiate the proceedings. It is not in dispute that the Special Judge is competent to take the cognizance of the offence. Therefore, even if there is any defect in taking cognizance, though I hasten to say that there is none, the proceedings and trial do not get vitiated.
Ld. Defence counsel argues that there is no evidence that accused Sanjeev Kumar had procured any KVPs from anywhere nor there is any shred of evidence too that he had presented those KVPs in the post office. Ld. Defence Counsel has drawn my attention to the attendance sheet of the post office which shows that during the period in question many officials of the post office were always present. It is submitted that the prosecution could have brought any of those officials to prove that accused Sanjeev Kumar was frequent visitor.
I disagree on this point with the Ld. Defence counsel. The prosecution has alleged that accused Sanjeev Kumar had presented those KVPs in the post office, although, no postal official have appeared to testify that accused Sanjeev Kumar used to appear and get encashed the KVPs but Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 90 CC No. 01/10 if the prosecution is able to able to prove that the receiver of the money, after encashing the KVPs, is none other than accused Sunil Kumar, in that case, an inference can be raised that accused Sunil Kumar had presented these forged KVPs in the post office and accordingly this case would fall in the four corners of Section 471 IPC. Therefore, the conviction u/s 471 IPC would be dependent upon the fact as to whether the prosecution has proved that the signatures of the recipient of the cash is none other than this accused.
Sh. Hamid Ahmad, Adv. has argued that prosecution has not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that PW35 Investigating Officer had taken the specimen signatures of this accused. PW35 has testified that he had taken the specimen signatures of accused Sunil Kumar which are S620 to S712 (Ext.PW35/A83 to Ext.PW35/A175). He testified that these specimen signatures were given by accused Sunil Kumar voluntarily in his presence and accused Sunil Kumar had put his signatures at 'Point B' on each page in presence of independent witness Gyanesh Kumar Jain who had put his signatures at 'Point C' on each page. Ld. Defence Counsel has submitted that in cross examination, accused Sunil Kumar has specifically given a suggestion that he had not given his specimen signatures and that in cross examination, accused has specifically given a suggestion that specimen writing and signatures sent to GEQD in the name of Sunil Kumar were written by some other person having high skill and expertise in imitating others' writing and signatures. It is argued that this Investigating Officer was holding post of Sub Inspector in Delhi Police before joining CBI and that he had falsely implicated accused Sunil Kumar in this case at the instance of one Sh. D.K. Singh Ruhil, Constable in Delhi Police who had certain enmity with this accused on an issue of sale of some property. Ld. Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 91 CC No. 01/10 Defence Counsel has drawn my attention to a reply of RTI application in which it is stated that Gyanesh Kumar Jain was not deputed to CBI office on 18.07.1999 & 20.07.1999. It is further submitted that on 18.07.1999 when the specimen signatures of accused Sunil Kumar have been shown to have been taken by the Investigating Officer, it was 'Sunday'. Further, Sh. Gyanesh Kumar Jain, who was examined by this court u/s 311 CrPC, was posted as Stenographer in Punjab National Bank, Zonal Office in Agra and he does not explain as to why he had come to Delhi on the said date.
Sh. Hamid Ahmad, Adv. has emphatically stated that CBI keeps such skilled persons who are able to imitate the handwriting of other persons.
Ld. Public Prosecutor has taken strong exception to this submission and argues that it is the accused who is expert in changing and forging the handwritings and signatures. He has drawn my attention to the sheets containing specimen signatures and submits that below the specimen signatures, accused has put his signatures on each sheet which has been proved by the Investigating Officer in his evidence. Ld. Public Prosecutor has further drawn my attention that the accused is so shrewd that during the 10 years of trial before this court, he had been putting his correct signatures on the attendance sheet of this court on each date of hearing, but, since the year 2010, he changed his signatures on the attendance sheets with an intention to create a false defence in respect of his specimen signatures. Ld. Public Prosecutor has drawn my attention that the signatures of the accused prior to the year 2010 are exactly same which find place on the specimen sheets at points 'B'.
Ld. Public Prosecutor submits that when this accused took a specific defence that specimen signatures do not belong to him, this court used its powers u/s 311 CrPC to summon the witness Gyanesh Kumar Jain in order Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 92 CC No. 01/10 to be sure as to whether the Investigating Officer is testifying truthfully or falsely, and this witness testified that he had witnessed the taking of specimen in question.
I have considered the rival submissions. Investigating Officer has testified that accused Sunil Kumar had given his specimen signatures voluntarily in presence of a witness namely Gyanesh Kumar Jain. A perusal of the sheets containing specimen handwriting of accused Sunil Kumar would show that at the end of each sheet, he has put his signatures. The signatures of the accused on each sheet signify that the specimen handwriting was given by none other than accused Sunil Kumar. It is pertinent to note that Gyanesh Kumar Jain was a stenographer posted in Punjab National Bank, Agra at the relevant time. At the stage of defence accused Sunil Kumar filed an RTI application asking as to whether Gyanesh Kumar Jain was attached with CBI on the relevant date. The concerned Public Information Officer filed a reply that Gyanesh Kumar Jain was not attached with CBI on the relevant date. Faced with such a situation, I deemed it appropriate to summon Gyanesh Kumar Jain as a Court Witness. It is pertinent to note that it was all the more necessary because it involved the credibility of a prime investigating agency namely CBI. Gyanesh Kumar Jain appeared and testified that he was not specifically attached as a witness in this case but he was attached in some other case of CBI and at the request of the investigating officer, he witnessed the specimen signatures. He identified his signatures on each attendance sheet and testified that although he cannot identify accused Sunil Kumar or accused Sanjeev Kumar @ Kaka as the persons who had given specimen signatures in his presence due to lapse of long time, but, the specimen handwritings from S620 to S712 dated 18.07.1999 and 20.07.1999 were witnessed by Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 93 CC No. 01/10 him. Ld. Defence Counsel submits that this witness does not prove the prosecution case that the specimen handwriting belongs to accused Sunil Kumar.
I am of the opinion that the court witness has specifically testified that he had witnessed the specimen writings/signatures in this case and had identified his signatures on each sheet i.e. S620 to S712 dated 18.07.1999 and 20.07.1999 Ext.PW35/A83 to Ext.PW35/A175. He also identified his signatures at Point 'D' on each sheet Ext.PW22/1039 to Ext.PW22/1069 belonging to another accused Sanjeev Kumar (A7). In cross examination, he had clarified that when he reached everything in the paper was written except the specimen signatures and the signatures of the investigating officer and his own signatures. In view of this situation, I find the testimony of Investigating Officer as well as court witness Gyanesh Kumar Jain to be truthful. Signatures of accused Sunil Kumar on each page of sheets containing specimen signatures proves that the specimen signatures in question have been given voluntarily by accused Sunil Kumar.
Once it is proved that the specimen signatures of accused Sunil Kumar were taken by the investigating officer and were sent to GEQD, Shimla for comparison of the signatures/handwritings with the questioned documents/KVPs, it is to be seen as to whether the report given by the handwriting expert witness PW22 Dr. R.Sharma is believable or not. It is pertinent to note that accused has also examined a handwriting expert namely Syed Faizal Huda in his support as DW1. Therefore, it has to be seen as to whether the report of handwriting expert i.e. PW22 is correct or whether the report of DW1 is correct.
Ld. Defence Counsel has assailed the competence of PW22 on the ground that PW22 has no Degree or Diploma in Forensic Science. Ld. Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 94 CC No. 01/10 Defence Counsel has pointed out that DW1 Syed Faizal Huda is B.Sc. (Hons.) in Forensic Science from Amity University, U.P. and M.Sc. (Forensic Science).
Ld. Public Prosecutor argued that even though PW22 does not hold any Degree or Diploma in Forensic Science but as per his testimony, he is M.Sc. and Ph.D in Chemistry and has received three years specialized training in the science of handwritings, identification and detection of forgery in Government of India Laboratory at Kolkata. It is submitted by Ld. Public Prosecutor that DW1 is, although, an M.Sc. in Forensic Science but he has nowhere testified about his training in the science of handwritings. It is submitted by Ld. Public Prosecutor that three years specialized training in this field in Government of India Laboratory fully equips PW22 with all the tools and technologies as well as of experience in the science of handwriting identification and detection of forgeries. It is further argued by Ld. Public Prosecutor that as per the testimony of DW1, he has given opinion in only 200 cases in various courts whereas PW22 has the experience of examining large number of documents and has tendered evidence in various courts of law throughout India. Furthermore, it is argued by Ld. Public Prosecutor that PW22 is posted in a government laboratory and is an independent witness whose fairness in giving the opinion cannot be doubted, whereas DW1 is a private practitioner who is more inclined to give a report in favour of a person who produces him a a witness.
I have considered these submissions and I am of the opinion that in view of the specialized training and the vast experience, the competence of PW22 cannot be doubted simply because he does not hold an academic Degree in Forensic Science.
Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 95 CC No. 01/10 Ld. Defence Counsel has drawn my attention to the fact that whereas the specimen handwritings and questioned documents were sent by CBI to GEQD Shimla but PW22 has come from Chandigarh. It is nowhere explained as to why and how the documents, which were sent to GEQD Shimla, have reached Chandigarh. Ld. Public Prosecutor submits that PW22 is an Assistant Government Examiner, GEQD whose laboratory is situated in Sector36A, Chandigarh and judicial notice can be taken of the fact that it is the Branch of GEQDShimla.
I have considered the submissions and I do not find any substance in arguments of Ld. Defence Counsel. No question in this regard was asked by accused to PW22 Dr. R.Sharma or to the Investigating Officer so as to enable them to clarify this aspect. Fact remains that Dr. R.Sharma is a Government Examiner and he compared the questioned documents with the specimen handwritings. In such a situation, the only question before this court is as to what weight should be given to the testimony of PW22 specially when a contradictory report has been given by another expert witness namely DW1 Syed Faizal Huda.
It is argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that accused Sunil Kumar is a public servant. He is Assistant Manger in National Cooperative Consumers Federation of India under the Central Government, Ministry of Consumer Affairs & Public Distribution, therefore, sanction of the government was required to prosecute this accused. I disagree with this submission. The offence of forgery has no connection with the status of accused Sunil Kumar as a public servant. It is pertinent to note that he is not an official of Postal Department where the KVPs were encashed.
It is argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that PW31, PW36 & PW37 are the witnesses who had supplied the stolen KVPs to various persons. It is Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 96 CC No. 01/10 submitted that they are accused persons in the FIRs concerning theft of the KVPs and in this case they have been produced as witnesses, which is not fair. I am of the opinion that none of the witness is connecting accused Sunil Kumar with the present offence. None of the witness had stated that they supplied any KVP to accused Sunil Kumar. Therefore, their statements are neither for the benefit of this accused nor injure his defence.
One objection has been raised by Ld. Defence Counsel that the original GEQD report is not a part of this case and therefore it cannot be read in evidence. Per contra, Ld. Defence Counsel has drawn my attention to the evidence of PW22 Dr. R. Sharma who has testified that his opinion already stands exhibited as Ext.PW15/1 in CC No. 13/08. He further testified that detailed reasoning running into 25 pages already stands exhibited as Ext.PW15/3 in CC no. 13/08. It is argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that since the report and the reasoning of the expert is not proved in the present case, therefore, it cannot be read in this case. Ld. Public Prosecutor submits that initially one FIR was registered and all the questioned documents and specimen handwritings were sent to GEQD. GEQD examined all those questioned and specimen handwritings and gave one report. Thereafter, the cases were bifurcated and charge sheets were filed post office wise. It is submitted by Ld. Public Prosecutor that this report is placed in the documents of CC No. 13/08 where it was proved as Ext.PW15/1 & Ext.PW15/3. However, since this report is relevant in the cases pertaining to other post offices also including the present case which involves forgeries and frauds in Post Office Nirankari Colony, the report is proved by the expert witness in this case. It is submitted that giving a fresh exhibit number in each case would have created a lot of confusion.
I am of the opinion that appropriate course would have been to place Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 97 CC No. 01/10 a copy of the report on this file and thereafter the copy could have been exhibited after comparing the same with the original report and thereafter the original report should have been placed back in the trunk containing the documents of CC no. 13/08. In this manner, there would have not been any need to give fresh exhibit number to the original documents, rather proper exhibit number could have been given to such copy of the report. However, it cannot be said that the course adopted by Ld. PP in proving the expert's report during examination of PW22 is illegal. Exhibit numbers are put only for the purpose of the identification of the documents. It does not serve any further purpose. The real issue is whether PW22 has proved his report or not? Perusal of his testimony would show that he identified his signatures on all the pages at 'point A' of his detailed reasons. He has also proved his opinion before the court. Therefore, if a new exhibit number is not given in the present case to this report, the same does not make any difference. However, for the sake of convenience I have taken a photocopy of the entire report in this file also.
Ld. Defence Counsel has drawn my attention to the statement u/s 161 CrPC of Lalita Prasad and to the disclosure of Mahinder Singh Verma. I have perused the statement u/s 161 CrPC. He has stated that he was posted as ASPO int he Office of Senior Superintendent Post Offices, Delhi North Division in June, 1999. He further stated that on 29.06.1999 Sh. B.L. Mudgal, Sr. Superintendent took him to Nirankari Colony Post Office and on checking the accounts of the Post Office, he found extraordinary variation in payment of KVPs between March, 1997 to July, 1998 which created suspicion. He stated that accused Mahinder Singh was Post Master of Nirankari Colony Post Office and entire fraudulent payment was made during his tenure. He stated that one Babu Ram Postal Assistant was also Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 98 CC No. 01/10 posted there and signatures of Mahinder Singh and Babu Ram were available on the discharge journals. He stated that when this fraud came to light, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against Mahinder Singh and Babu Ram and thereafter both were suspended under the orders of Sh. B.L. Mudgal, SSPO (Delhi North). A perusal of the entire statement would show that it is not relevant to accused Sunil Kumar. I have also perused the disclosure statement of accused Mahinder Singh (Verma). It is submitted by Ld. Defence Counsel that in this disclosure statement there is only a mention of Sh. S.C. Jain and there is no mention of the present accused. I am of the opinion that above stated disclosure and statement u/s 161 CrPC of Lalita Prasad are neither here nor there and are of no help to prosecution or to the accused. Therefore, the prosecution has neither examined Lalita Prasad as witness nor had proved the disclosure statement of Mahinder Singh Verma.
In view of the rejection of all the points raised by Ld. Defence Counsel, I take in hand the real issue as to which expert's report is a correct opinion. Here, I would like to disagree with Ld. Public Prosecutor that an expert having greater experience would be a better witness than an expert who has just entered the profession. A scientifically correct opinion even by a very young expert would override an incompetent and hasty work done by an expert having years of experience. Therefore, while assessing the reports of experts, the court must be very objective without being influenced by the experience and stature of such experienced expert.
Sh. Syed Faizal Huda, DW1 in his report Ex.DW1/C mentions that some of the disputed signatures from questioned documents were selected randomly and enlarged photographs thereof were prepared from the certified copies of the KVPs obtained from the court. The disputed Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 99 CC No. 01/10 signatures selected by the defence experts are as under: Q13529, Q13533, Q13537, Q13541, Q13545, Q13549, Q13553, Q13557, Q13561, Q13564A, Q13422, Q13426, Q13166, Q13170, Q13174, Q13178, Q13182, Q13186, Q13190, Q13194, Q13206, Q13210, Q13239, Q13243, Q13247, Q13251, Q13287, Q13291, Q8059, Q8064, Q8069, Q8074, on their enlarged photographs.
The details of certified copies of documents bearing specimen signatures used by defence expert for comparison are as under: S.No. Specimen No. Ex.No. (PW35)
1. S640 A103
2. S641 A104
3. S642 A105
4. S646 A109
5. S647 A110
6. S648 A111
7. S649 A112
8. S650 A113
9. S651 A114
10. S652 A115
11. S653 A116
12. S654 A117
13. S655 A118
14. S656 A119
15. S657 A120
16. S658 A121 At page "13" of his report, Ex.DW1/C under the heading of "OBSERVATIONS", it has been written that the expert had scientifically Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 100 CC No. 01/10 examined the disputed and specimen signatures on the enlarged photographs with the help of scientific instructions such as "magnifying glasses, computer software Adobe photoshop 7.0, CS1, CS2, etc., which are noted for the purpose of comparison. Alongwith this report, the expert has filed the enlarged photographs of a few disputed and specimen signatures which have been compared by him and the same are collectively, Ex.DW1/B. In his report Ex.DW1/C, at page "13", the expert has written that specimen signatures show that they have been written freely and carelessly by a skilled writer with complete natural writing, freedom of flow and smoothness.
To my mind, this observation of defence expert corroborates the prosecution case that the writer of the specimen signatures (i.e., accused Sunil Kumar) has given his handwriting voluntarily without any pressure and coercion from CBI. This observation of defence expert also contradicts the stand of accused that specimen signatures of this accused were prepared by an expert imitator in the office of CBI. Had this been correct, the specimen signatures would not have been written freely. Rather, the same would have shown the element of tracing, an effort and imitation in the specimen signature.
In respect of questioned signatures, the defence expert mentioned at page "13", "14" and "15" that formation of a few letters in disputed signatures was of inferior order than the specimen signatures. Regarding the "STYLE", the expert has opined that in disputed signatures the letter 'j' and body shoulder of letter 'n' shows laboured style. I have seen the enlarged photographs of the disputed signatures and the specimen signatures which are collectively exhibited as Ex.DW1/B by the expert Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 101 CC No. 01/10 witnesses of defence. Although the questioned signatures in KVPs appear to be very smooth but the enlarged photographs of the same as produced by the defence expert witnesses clearly exhibit the effort to disguise the original style of writing these signatures because at least first two letters in enlarged photographs show trembling of hand but remaining portion of disputed signatures is written with free flow. PW1 in his report has stated, as discussed above that formation of certain letters show laboured style in all the disputed signatures enlarged photographs. To my mind, this is a sure sign that the signatures have been forged. When the person commits forgery, in such a large number of documents, he tries to disguise his original handwriting. In this effort, his signatures would show the element of hesitation, effort, labour and may also be tremulous. Such signatures are not done freely. The clever forgerer knows that in case he forges the signatures, with a free flow, he would be easily connected with the crime. DW1 has been unable to see this aspect in enlarged photographs of the disputed signatures and reached a wrong conclusion that the disputed signatures have been written by a minimum skilled writer. In his report, the defence expert has tried to say that the specimen signatures have been written with fluency in graceful manner and they show a degree of penmanship at all places whereas the disputed signatures show that they have been written by a medium skilled writer which is apparent from the formation of letters and their strokes. Therefore, it is submitted by Ld. Defence Counsel that the disputed signatures and specimen signatures have been written by two different persons.
I have already discussed above that a clever forgerer would try to disguise his handwriting. The enlarged photographs of disputed signatures Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 102 CC No. 01/10 produced by the defence expert show trembling of hand in first two letters but the remaining letters do not show any trembling, rather, it shows that they were written with free flow. Had the disputed signatures were being written by a medium skilled person, the trait of tremulousness appearing in first two letters of the disputed signatures would have also appeared in the last two letters. Therefore, I disagree with the opinion of the defence expert that the disputed signatures have been written by a medium skilled writer. The enlarged photographs of the disputed signatures therefore clearly bear a stamp of forgery.
Infact the fact of trembling of hand in first two letters and free flow in remaining letters should have led him to the conclusion that there is forgery in the signatures. Rather he wrongly concluded that these signatures have been written by minimum skilled person.
As per the prosecution case, accused Sunil Kumar has forged his signatures purported to have been signed by 'Subhash Chand Jain'. Therefore, in his specimen handwriting, he has given specimen signatures in the same manner as the signatures appearing on the KVPs, but in free flow.
The specimen signatures have been taken in such a manner so that questioned signatures may be compared with the letters appearing in the specimen signatures. Since the forged signatures would always be written with an effort to escape the identification, if detected by the law enforcing agencies, it is natural that formation of letters of specimen signatures, which are written in that free flow, would be different from the formation of the letters in the forged signatures. However, when a person commits forgery in large number of documents, as has happened in the present case, his handwriting habits would overtake him, despite an effort to disguise his Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 103 CC No. 01/10 handwriting. As a proverb goes, a man may become master of universe, he always remains a slave to his habits. Therefore, the habitual characteristics of handwriting would frequently overtake even in the forged signatures, if he has made such forgery in large number of documents. This is fully exhibited in the present forged signatures.
This writing habit is appearing as an unjustified "idot" in many questioned documents and disputed documents. The defence expert on page 17 of his report Ex.DW1/C has observed that placing and position of "idot" is more prominent and justified in disputed signatures but not in specimen signatures. I have seen all the forged signatures on KVP's and specimen signatures as well as the enlarged photographs and I have no hesitation in disagreeing with the report of the defence expert witness on this point. Wherever "idot" is appearing, the same is equally at unjustified position whether it is specimen handwriting or it is the disputed signatures. Although on many disputed signatures the "idot" has been written in 'zero' shape however there are large number of specimen and disputed signatures where a simple dot is put on the next letter and is at an unjustified place. This habit is a peculiar characteristic of the handwriting of this accused and it has been mentioned by PW 22 in his cross examination.
Therefore the observation about the "idot" by the defence expert is wrong and cannot be accepted.
Regarding the size and proportion of the letters the defence expert states that the size and proportion of the letters are not similar to the disputed signatures. Similarly he has stated that the spacing between the letters also differs. I am of the opinion that the expert has not taken in consideration the fact that space for signature on the KVP's is a very small Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 104 CC No. 01/10 space whereas the specimen signatures were given on full sheet having lot of space. Regarding difference in the coordination of writing muscles and pen scope, I disagree with his opinion because the expert has not kept in mind the space available for specimen signatures and the disputed signatures.
The expert has discussed the formation of individual letters. He has written that the letters 'S' and 'j' are collectively written in one pen in the disputed signatures whereas they are written singularly in two pen operations in specimen signatures. I may point here that I have already discussed that there is a "disguise" in the formation of the letters 'S' and 'j' in disputed signatures and therefore this difference appears between specimen and disputed signatures.
The defence expert has stated that there is no evidence of disguise in disputed signatures and specimen signatures. I agree with him in respect of specimen signatures but I disagree with him that there is no evidence of disguise in disputed signatures. The enlarged photographs clearly shows evidence of disguise in first two letters namely 'S' and 'j' because the handwriting is tremulous as appearing in enlarged photographs. Therefore it is clear that the formation of 'S' and 'j' in the disputed signatures is not effortless and free and therefore both the letters appear as joined to disguise the natural habit of the writer. Same is my opinion in respect of the manner and execution of letter 'S'. In respect of letter 'a' and 'n' I would say that the formation of letter 'a' and 'n' in the enlarged photographs of disputed signatures and specimen signatures are similar. Therefore I disagree with the observation of the defence expert on the point of letter 'a' and 'n'. Regarding the embellishment stroke the defence expert has stated that this embellishment stroke is much extended in disputed signatures as Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 105 CC No. 01/10 compared to specimen signatures which shows the dissimillarity of individual habits. I have seen the questioned documents, specimen signatures and enlarged photographs. It seems that the defence expert has deliberately picked up those disputed signatures which have longer embellishment stroke. He has not seen that in large number of specimen signatures there is a long embellishment stroke. In view of these circumstances I am of the opinion that the opinion of the defence expert, that the specimen signatures and disputed signatures have not been written by one and the same writer and that they were written by two different writers, is absolutely incorrect. Unfortunately the defence expert has given factually wrong report which is clearly visible from the "idot", formation of letter 'a' and 'n' and "embellishment strokes". He has given a wrong report on the question of disguised writing in the disputed signatures. He was unable to detect that disputed signatures were forged signatures. He was unable to understand that size, proportion and spacing of letters depend upon the space available to a writer. He confused disguised writing with the writing of a medium skilled person. Hence, I would like to say that when a semiliterate person, having some elementary practice of writing, puts his signatures, his entire handwriting would be tremulous. However in the disputed signatures, the tremulous writing appears only on the first two letters and remaining letters are written free. In these circumstances the defence expert stands totally discredited and cannot be believed by this court.
Now, I take up the report of expert witness PW22 Dr. R. Sharma. In his reasons for the opinion, he has opined that he questioned signatures (details of which are given on page 12 & 13 of his report) tally with the specimen signatures of accused Sunil Kumar. As per this report, around Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 106 CC No. 01/10 960 disputed signatures have tallied with the specimen signatures of accused Sunil Kumar. I may point out that the defence expert had only tallied 338 disputed signatures. He has given following reasons in support of his report:
"Inter se comparison of the standard writings reveal that they are freely written, show natural variations and have inter consistency among themselves. The questioned writings also exhibit these qualities similarly. They also agree in the general writing habits of movement, skill, speed, alignment, spacing, relative size and proportion of the letters and their combination, nature of commencing and terminal stroke, simplification etc. Both questioned and standard writings also agree in the minute and inconspicuous details of formation of letters and their combinations, some of such similarities in the individual writing habits are manner of execution of first initial character with the nature and location of its start, nature and relative location of its vertical staff and body curvature with the formation of large whirl and manner of its joining to the succeeding letter; commencement of second character appearing as letter 'j' with the nature and formation of its body part, nature and relative size of its whirl and direction of finish; peculiar manner of execution of letter 'a' with the nature and location of its start, nature and relative size of its oval part and direction of finish; simplified execution of letter 'i', nature and location of its body part and finish; peculiar habit of putting bifurcated idots; manner of execution of letter 'n' with the nature and location of its medial part and finish is observed similar in the questioned and standard; habit of putting underscoring with the nature and location of its cutting the first and second character 'whirl' is observed similar with variation in the questioned and standard. All the significant features as Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 107 CC No. 01/10 occurring in the questioned writings are found similar exemplified at one or the other place in the standard writings.
There is no divergence between questioned and standard writings and there is no sign of imitation in the production of the questioned writings. The above discussed similarities in the writing habits between the questioned and standard writings are significant and sufficient and will not accidentally coincide in writings of two different persons and when considered collectively lead me to the aforesaid opinion of common authorship."
A perusal of the report would show that specimen writings were freely written and show natural variations and have inter consistency among themselves. It is opined that both questioned and standard writings also agree in minute and inconspicuous details of formation of letters and their combinations. It is pertinent to note that the expert has given such attention to the commencement of second character appearing as letter 'j', nature and relative size of its whirl and direction of finish. He has also noticed the peculiar manner of execution of letter 'a' and 'n'. He has noted the habit of putting under score and cutting the first and second character 'whirl'. Moreover, he has noted the nature and location of the body part of the letter 'i' and peculiar habit of putting bifurcated 'i' dots. Here, I may point out that in the enlarged photographs filed by the defence expert, the bifurcated 'i' dot is clearly visible in the disputed signature Q13557, Q13422, Q13426 etc. Such bifurcated 'i' dot is also appearing in large number of specimen signatures for example in the last line of enlarged photograph of specimen signatures S646.
In view of the above observations, I hold that opinion of the prosecution witness is correct and has to be relied upon. It is pertinent to Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 108 CC No. 01/10 note that in cross examination, PW22 has denied the suggestion that science of handwriting comparison is not a 100% science. In the present case, sufficient material was provided to him for the comparison. There are hundreds of disputed signatures and hundreds of specimen signatures. It is pertinent to note that Ld. Public Prosecutor has drawn my attention to the fact that the defence expert placed on record the enlarged photographs of the first three lines of the specimen signatures where the accused was cautious in putting the specimen signatures and that he has not taken the signatures from the lower portion of the sheets where due to tiredness of writing, the natural handwriting of the accused would have appeared.
In these circumstances, I am left in no doubt that the writer of the forged signatures on the KVPs and the identity slips is the same person who had written the specimen signatures.
Ld. Defence Counsel has drawn my attention to three letters collectively exhibited as Ext.PW35/A207. It is submitted that these letters were seized by the investigating officer from one Mr. Mudgil vide seizure memo Ext. PW35/A206 and the address of Subhash Chand Jain is written in the letters as Plot No. 120, Shangurpur, Delhi. It is submitted that the Investigating Officer neither verified this address nor made any inquiry as to whether any person with the name of Subhash Chand Jain resides at this address. It is pertinent to note that allegation against accused Sunil Kumar is that he had forged the signatures of Sh. Subhash Chand Jain on the KVPs. I have perused these letters. These three letters are purportedly to have been written by Subhash Chand Jain to the postmaster wherein he has mentioned that he had purchased the KVPs from Panipat post office and that he wanted pre mature encashment and that the same may be encashed. In these three letters collectively exhibited as Ext.PW35/A207, Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 109 CC No. 01/10 the particulars of the KVPs which the applicant wanted to encash have also been given. The particulars and numbers of these KVPs written in these letters are same which have been encashed in this case. Although, I agree with the submissions of Ld. Defence Counsel that investigating officer should have verified the address i.e. Plot no. 120, Shungerpur, Delhi and he should have also sent the signatures for comparison, however, to my mind, this deficiency in investigation is of no benefit to this accused. I may point out that this court has full power to compare the handwriting. The signatures of Subhash Chand Jain on these three letters clearly tally with the signatures of Subhash Chand Jain on the KVPs. Therefore, I am of the considered view that even these three signatures are forge signatures written by accused Sunil Kumar.
Ld. Defence Counsel argues that it would be highly unsafe to convict a person solely on the basis of the opinion of the handwriting expert. He has referred to the following judgments in his support:
1. Ishawari Prasad V. Mohd. Isa, AIR 1963 SC 1728.
2. Sashi Kumar v. Subodh Kumar, AIR 1964 SC 529.
3. State of Gujarat Vs Vinaya Chandra Chhota Lal Patni AIR 778, 1967 SCR(1) 249.
4. Balakrishna Das V. Radha Devi AIR 1989 AII 133.
5. State of Maharashtra V. Sukhdeo Singh AIR 1992 SC 2100 (2116): (1992) 3 SCJ 330.
6. State of U.P. V. Charles Gurmukh Sobhraj, CriLJ 3844: (1996) 9 SCC 472:1996 SCC 1065.
7. State of Himachal Pradesh Vs Jai Lal & Ors. AIR 1999 SC 3318, 199(2) ALD Cri 855.
Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 110 CC No. 01/10
8. Piara Singh Vs. Jagtar Singh AIR 1987 Punj 93.
9. Vandavasi Karthikeya alias Krishnamuthry v.S. Kamalamma AIR 1994 AP 102 at 114.
10.Ram Chandra and Anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1957 SC 381, 1957 CriL.J. 559
11.Kanchan Singh v.State of Guj. AIR 1979 SC 1011: 1979 CriLJ 889.
12.Magan Behari Lal v. State of Pb. AIR 1977SC 1091: 1977 CriLJ
711.
On the other hand, Ld. Public Prosecutor has referred to Jaipal Vs State and Rajender Vs State and submitted that handwriting expert's report is enough to connect a person with the crime. I have considered the submissions. I am of the opinion that an expert's opinion is an evidence in itself. Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act lays down that when the court has to form an opinion as to the identity of handwriting or finger impressions, the opinions upon that point of the persons expert in that science are relevant facts. If the two handwritings match with each other, this itself is an evidence as per the the Indian Evidence Act. To say it differently, the matching of two handwritings is itself a substantial evidence u/s 45 of Indian Evidence Act and the opinion of the handwriting expert is sought only to facilitate the court to form an opinion on this point. Therefore, to say that conviction can be or cannot be based solely upon the report of handwriting expert would be misleading. The appropriate interpretation of Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act is that court is competent to form its own opinion on the point of identity of handwriting and for that purpose the court may call for the report of a handwriting expert. Therefore, the relevant fact before this court is the matching or non matching of the Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 111 CC No. 01/10 handwriting. If the handwritings match there cannot be any hitch in convicting the accused even if further corroborative evidence is not available. I fully agree with the Ld. Public Prosecutor and quote from the judgment dated 05.07.2011 passed by the Division Bench of Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.Ravindra Bhatt and Hon'b le Mr. Justice G.P. Mittal in Jaipal Vs State Criminal Appeal No. 137/98 and Rajendra Vs State Criminal Appeal No. 181/98 as under:
"It is true that except the handwriting Expert's report Ext.PW4/A there is no corroboration that the ransom letter Ext.PW12/A was in the handwriting of Appellant Jaipal. The question was dealt in detail by the Supreme Court in Murari Lal v. State of M.P., AIR 1980 SC 531.
The court observed that handwriting expert is not an accomplice and there is no justification for condemning his opinion evidence. It was held that if the Court is convinced from the report of an expert that the questioned handwriting was of the accused, there is no difficulty in relying upon the expert's opinion without any corroboration."
It is pertinent to note that Hon'ble High Court had relied upon Murari Lal v. State of M.P., AIR 1980 SC 531 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court held that there was no rule of law nor any rule of prudence that the evidence of handwriting expert must not be acted upon, unless substantially corroborated.
In view of the above stated law, I am of the opinion that when a case is being pressed by the prosecution solely on the basis of handwriting expert, the court should be very cautious and the reasons for the expert opinion must be carefully examined. In case where reasons for opinion are convincing and there is no reliable evidence throwing a doubt upon it, the Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 112 CC No. 01/10 testimony of handwriting expert may be accepted.
I have already given the detailed reasons as to why the testimony of defence expert is rejected and why the testimony of PW22 on the point of the handwriting has been accepted by me. I may reiterate that PW22 was having large number of the disputed signatures and proved the specimen signatures of accused Sunil Kumar. The report shows that he had carefully examined all of them out of which a large number of questioned signatures tallied with the specimen signatures written by accused Sunil Kumar. I have personally compared the handwriting on the original KVP with the specimen signatures as well as the enlarged photographs of the same shown to me by the defence expert and I am left in doubt that the signatures of S.C. Jain, the purported holder of KVPs in question have been forged by none other than Sunil Kumar. The present facts are such that no further corroboration in this case is required. Accordingly, I hold that prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused Sunil Kumar has committed forgeries of KVPs which are valuable securities. Since he has put the forged signatures showing receiving of the KVP amount, therefore, it is also proved that he has not only impersonated as S.C. Jain but also cheated a sum of Rupees Sixty Nine Lacs Eighty Three Thousand and Two Hundred of the government amounts.
153. Hence, I refer to Munna Kumar Upadhyaya Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, 2012 III AD (CRI.) (S.C.) 269 (Supreme Court) Crl. Appeal No. 1316 of 2008, Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that if accused gives false evidence in his statement u/s 313 CrPC, court can draw an adverse inference against him. In the present case, this accused has taken a false defence that his specimen signatures were not taken by the Investigating Officer. Such conduct of the accused would also tilt the case Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 113 CC No. 01/10 in favour of the prosecution and I fully agree with the prosecution that he is one of the prominence conspirator in this case.
154. Evidence qua accused Sanjeev Kumar (A7) Sh. Kedar Yadav, Adv. apart from the submissions raised during the arguments which he made on behalf of accused Sohan Pal Sharma and accused Manoj Kumar submits that there is no evidence that accused Sanjeev Kumar had procured any benefit. I have considered his submissions. The allegation against accused Sanjeev Kumar that he impersonated as Rajesh Kumar, holder of 383 KVPs bearing no.'s 31BB014261 to 014270, 31BB013187 to 013190, 31BB013901 to 013910, 31BB013981 to 31BB014000, 31BB006941 to 006980, 31BB006681 to 006740, 31BB006801 to 006840, 31BB006781 to 006800, 31BB006181 to 006200, 31BB006221 to 006240, 31BB006261 to 006340, 31BB006381 to 006440 amounting to Rs. 27,19,300/ and thereafter got the same encashed at Nirankari Colony Post Office causing a loss to the the Postal Department and thereby cheated the Postal Department. He is charged with forging offence u/s 467 IPC as well as u/s 120B IPC. Whereas I have already answered all the points raised by Sh. Kedar Yadav, Adv. while dealing with the evidence qua accused Sohan Pal Sharma and Manoj Kumar, I would say that if he has forged the signatures of the purported holder of KVP, this would be enough evidence to show that he was the recipient of the amount after encashing the above stated KVPs. It is pertinent to note that the signatures of Rajesh Kumar are placed as a token of receiving the KVP amount in the above stated KVPs. Therefore, this situation leads to only one conclusion i.e. accused Sanjeev Kumar had benefited from the encashed KVPs. I have also seen the specimen Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 114 CC No. 01/10 handwriting (S191 to S283), the questioned documents and opinion of the expert. Relevant portion of the expert's report is reproduced as under:
"Inter se comparison of the standard writings reveals that they are freely written, show natural variations and have inter consistency among themselves. The questioned writings also exhibit these qualities similarly. They also agree in the general writing habits of movement, skill, speed, alignment, spacing, relative size and proportion of the letters and their combination, nature of commencing and terminal stroke, simplification etc. All the significant features as occurring in the questioned writings are found similar exemplified at one or the other place in the standard writings.
Both questioned and standard writings also agree in the minute and inconspicuous details of formation of letters and their combinations, some of such similarities in the individual writing habits are: execution of letter 'sa', nature and location of the start and movement in the execution of the body part as well as the direction of finish; commencement of letter 'ta', nature and location of its vertical troke and body part; nature and start of letter 'ha' nature and location of its upper and lower body curvature and finish; manner of execution of letter 'ja' nature and location of its start, nature and location of its body part and finish; movement in the execution of body part of letter 'ka'; nature and start of letter 'ra' with similar variation; commencement of letter 'ma' nature and location of its diagonal stroke as well as manner of its joining with second vertical staff and direction of finish; manner of execution of the vowel sign of 'Aakar' in the word 'sat' 'hazar' etc.; start and finish of the vowel sign of 'ekar' in the word 'rajesh'; nature and relative location in the execution of the vowel sign of 'ookar'; habit of putting head stroke is observed similar in questioned and standard; manner of execution of commonly occurring figures such as : '0' '1' '7' were also observed similar with similar variation in the questioned and standard.
There is no divergence between questioned and standard writings and there is no sign of imitation in the production of the questioned writings. The above discussed similarities in the writing habits between the questioned and standard writings are significant and sufficient and will not accidentally coincide in writings of two different persons and when considered collectively lead me to the aforesaid opinion of common authorship."
Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 115 CC No. 01/10
155. I am of the opinion that the report is correct and there is not scope for differing with this report. Regarding his involvement in the conspiracy, I refer to only one KVP 31BB006200 Ext.PW22/343. As per the report of PW22, the handwriting at Q14994 and Q14995 tally with the specimen handwriting of accused Sohan Pal Sharma and on the back side of the KVP accused Sanjeev Kumar has written at point Q14996 and has put signatures as 'Rajesh Kumar' in Hindi, as holder of KVP and the recipient of the encashed amount. Same is the situation in large number of KVPs. Therefore, it is clearly established that accused Sanjeev Kumar had acted in conspiracy with accused Sohan Pal Sharma by inforging KVPs and in consequence of this conspiracy, he had impersonated as 'Rajesh Kumar' and had encashed the forged KVPs. Accordingly, I convict the accused u/s 419/420/467/471 IPC as well as u/s 120B IPC.
156. Evidence qua accused Laxman Prasad Thakur (A8) I am of the opinion that the prosecution has been unable to connect him with the crime. Accordingly, I acquit him.
157. Evidence qua accused Mahinder Singh Verma (A9) Accused Mahinder Singh Verma is a public servant being the SubPost Master of Nirankari Colony, Post Office. Prosecution has proved the sanction under Section 19 of P. C. Act to prosecute this accused as Ex.PW4/D1 (mistakenly written as Ex.PW1/D1 on the document). It is argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that there is one letter on record to show that the prosecution proved an amended sanction. It is argued that the original sanction is missing and without the availability of original sanction order, it cannot be ascertained as to whether the same was mechanical or Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 116 CC No. 01/10 there was some application of mind.
Although the letter dated 17.7.2001 written by Ms S. Sundari Nanda, Superintendent of Police CBI (D127) addressed to Chief Post Master General (Delhi Circle) has not been proved but for the purpose of preventing any prejudice to the accused, I have perused this letter. In this letter it has been brought to the notice of the addressee that GEQD opinion was sought on a sample only on 81 KVPs amounting to Rs.8 lacs only, whereas the value of the 3500 KVPs amounts to Rs.4 crore approximately. Sample of smaller number of KVPs was taken because of the excess work pressure at GEQD, Shimla at that time. It is stated in this letter that on legal advise it is felt that opinion on all 3500 KVPs should be taken. Hence after receiving the opinion on all the KVPs, it was stated that a slight modification is required in the sanction order, which was issued on 30.11.2000. A draft sanction was also sent along with this letter to the addressee.
D128 is a letter written by Sh. A. Kharkwal to Superintendent of Police, CBI forwarding the prosecution sanctions in response to the letter dated 17.8.2001. Sh. A. Kharkwal was examined as PW4 by the prosecution. In cross examination these letters were not brought to the notice of the witness, so as to afford him an explanation on this point. Therefore now at this stage accused cannot raise and point out these questions. However testimony of PW4 shows that he had applied his mind before granting of sanction to prosecute this accused and I do not find any infirmity in this sanction order. The abovestated letter D128 at the most shows that whereas in the earlier sanction, the reference of only a few KVPs was given, in the fresh sanction the reference of all the KVPs was given. The sanction proved by the prosecution is an exhaustive sanction now Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 117 CC No. 01/10 covering all the KVPs in question and I do not find any infirmity in the same. So far as the question of sending a draft for the grant of sanction is concerned I refer to Kiran Pal Singh Vs. State 2011 II AD (CRL) (DHC.)306, where in para 6 of the judgment, it was held that there is no infirmity if a draft sanction order is placed before the sanctioning authority alongwith the application for according sanction, provided the sanctioning authority applies mind to the facts of the case.
Therefore, I hold that the sanctioning authority had applied its mind before according sanction to prosecute this accused.
It is argued by Sh. Shailender Kumar, adv. for accused Mahinder Singh Verma that as per the prosecution case itself only five discharge journals were prepared by accused Mahinder Singh Verma. Ld. Public Prosecutor submits that accused Mahinder Singh Verma was post master of the post office and the discharge journals were to be prepared by accused Mahinder Singh Verma only as per Rule 33 of Post Office Saving Bank Manual VolumeII. It is submitted that it is another matter that his specimen signatures only tallied with the his signatures on five discharge journals. I disagree with the submissions of Ld. Defence Counsel. In answer at point "f" to question no. 236, accused Mahinder Singh Verma has stated that it was the duty of Babu Ram Postal Assistant, to prepare and issue "discharge journals" in respect of KVPs etc. However accused Mahinder Singh Verma has not quoted any rule as to why a postal assistant would prepare a discharge journals despite the presence of the post master. It is not his case that he was on leave on the relevant dates, when the KVPs were encashed. I may add here that at point "g" of his answer to question no.236, he had stated that though it was the duty of Babu Ram, Postal Assistant, to prepared discharge journals, and that when due to urgency of Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 118 CC No. 01/10 situation, accused Mahinder Singh Verma also prepared the discharge journals. Ld. Public Prosecutor submits that though the hand writing expert was unable to give opinion on the discharge journals except five, but perusal of the signatures would show that these are the signatures of Mahinder Singh Verma. I agree with his submissions. The signatures on other discharge journals are appeared to be similar to the signatures of Mahinder Singh Verma. This accused has not taken any defence that his signatures have been forged by Babu Ram on discharge journals. It is not his plea that on the remaining discharge journals, the signatures pertain to Babu Ram, the Postal Assistant. This situation raises only one inference that all the discharge journals mentioning the encashment of the forged KVPs were prepared and signed by Mahinder Singh Verma and not by Babu Ram, Postal Assistant. Therefore I also do not find any substance in another submission of Ld. Defence Counsel that Babu Ram, Postal Assistant, was responsible for encashment of KVPs and preparation of discharge journals. It makes no difference if he was suspended for the purpose of departmental inquiry for this fraud. The reason is simple. A person can be suspended for negligence also. But here in case of Mahinder Singh Verma definite evidence of his involvement in the crime is forthcoming.
It is argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that PW2 Ishwar Singh, Postal Assistant, has testified that before the theft of the KVPs, in the present case, there was no file in the post office regarding lost or missing certificates. It is submitted that in his post office also no circular of missing certificates was received and even the Investigation Officer was unable to seized any circular from the post office Nirankari Colony. Therefore post master or staff under him had no reason to believe that the KVPs presented for encashment in the post office were in fact stolen and forged KVPs. Ld. Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 119 CC No. 01/10 Public Prosecutor on the other hand submits that the circumstances in the present case clearly show that accused Mahinder Singh Verma was in active collusion with the co accused persons. It is argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that one Babu Ram, Postal Assistant, posted in Nirankari Colony, Post Office was dealing with all the KVPs at the counter but he was not made accused.
I have considered this submission. As per Rule 23(9) of Post Office Saving Bank Manual VolumeII, in all cases in which a certificate is encahsed at any office other than the office of registration, an advice of payment (NC10) should be sent to the office of registration. PW2 Ishwar Singh, the Postal Assistant, had testified about the procedure and stated that after encashment of KVPs, the information of discharge of such certificates is sent to the issuing office in form NC10 by registered post. This evidence was put to Mahinder singh Verma in question no.8 of his statement under Section 313 CrPC. Accused admitted this procedure to be correct. I may point out that at the time of cross examination of PW2, this accused had taken a stand that form NC10 is not required to be sent. However in his statement under Section 313 CrPC, he has taken a "U" turn and admitted that NC10 is required to be sent. He further took a stand (at point 6) in answer to question no.236 that NC10 forms were sent to the post office Panipat and Dadri but no response or complain was received from Panipat Post office or Dadri Post Office. Unfortunately, this accused has taken a false defence at this point. PW11 Manohar Lal Sub Post Master, Panipat appeared with records and testified that he had seen the KVPs bearing series of 31 BB and the identity slips purported to have been issued from Panipat Post Office in the name of S. C. Jain. He testifies that these KVPs and the identity slips do not bear the signatures of Sh. Gulshan Kumar Thukral, the then Sub Post Master, Panipat Post Office Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 120 CC No. 01/10 and that these KVPs were not issued from Panipat Post Office. This witness denied the suggestion that the form 10 in respect of the above stated KVPs were received by Post Office, Panipat but the same were destroyed by the Post Office. In fact he has testified that in the year 1998 and 1999 he did not receive any information regarding the payment of KVPs on form NC10. Accused Mahinder Singh Verma has not brought any record from the post office Nirankari colony to show dispatch of any NC10 form to post office Panipat city or Post Office Dadri. In these circumstances, the falsity of the defence of accused Mahinder Singh Verma stands fully exposed and is an additional reason to raise an inference about the complicity of this accused in the conspiracy in question.
Further, this accused has taken a false defence that his post office had not received any circular of the stolen KVPs. I may point out that as per the testimony of PW7 Sh. Janardan Singh, the Assistant Superintendent (Complaints) in Postal Department, Civil Lines, two circulars F1 Misc. 199798 dated 06.11.1997 were issued on the basis of letter on INV/1810/97 dated 15.10.1997 received from CPMG, Delhi CircleI, New Delhi and INV/1812/96Vig. dated 15.10.1997 received from APMG V&I Delhi Circle. He also proved the cyclostyled copy of another circular F4/Instructions/97 dated 16.12.1997, which was issued on the basis of letter INV/GMisc./96 dated 11.11.1997 APMG, INV. PMG Assam Circle and INV/411/97 dated 08.12.1997 from CPMG, Delhi Circle, New Delhi. He proved this circular as Ext.PW7/C. A perusal of this circular would show that the KVPs of 29BB series of various numbers including 730 126300 were also lost in transit/railway custody. It is pertinent to note that the KVPs bearing no. 29BB 730201 to 263, 29BB 730265 to 274, 29BB 730277 to 300 were presented by Sunil Kumar in post office Nirankari Colony and Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 121 CC No. 01/10 were encashed. I may point out that the aforesaid circular Ext.PW7/C (D83)(NC), in which the numbers of stolen KVPs of 29BB series are given, bears the stamp of Nirankari Colony Post Office showing that this circular was received in the Nirankari Colony Post Office. Though, I agree with Ld. Defence Counsel that the circular regarding the stolen KVPs of 31BB series having been received in Post Office Nirankari Colony has not been proved, but this court cannot lose sight of the fact that omission of accused Mahinder Singh Verma in not sending form NC 10 in respect of any KVP including the KVPs of 31BB series to the concerned post offices (i.e. Dadri and Panipat City post offices) informing the said post offices about encashment of the KVPs proves beyond doubt that the omission was deliberate and intentional. This fact proves that accused Mahinder Singh Verma knew that these KVPs were stolen and forged KVPs. Otherwise, as per rules, he should have sent the NC10 forms to the said post offices in routine manner. He did not send the same to the said post offices because he knew that by doing so the fact of encashing the stolen and forged KVPs would be exposed because the post offices of Panipat City and Dadri would naturally write back to post office Nirankari Colony that no such KVPs have been issued by the said post offices. I point it out again that PW11 Manohar Lal, Sub Post Master Panipat had proved the guard file register of Panipat City Post Office, Panipat and has proved as to what KVPs were issued from their post office during the relevant period and also proved that none of the KVPs in question were issued from their post office.
Similarly, the investigating officer had seized all the forms of applications for the purchase of KVPs which are exhibit Ext.PW35/X1 to X102 from the post office Dadri for the relevant period. Perusal of the forms would show that none of the KVPs in question was issued from Dadri Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 122 CC No. 01/10 post office.
In nutshell, it is clear that accused Mahinder Singh Verma knew that none of the KVPs in question were issued from Post offices Panipat city and Dadri and that these KVPs being encashed in his post office are stolen and forged KVPs. Accordingly, accused Mahinder Singh Verma is proved to be in conspiracy with other accused persons. By encashing the said KVPs, he has by corrupt and illegal means obtained for the other accused persons namely Manoj Kumar, H.N. Pal, Sunil Kumar and Sanjeev Kumar the pecuniary advantage and thereby he is guilty u/s 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He being a public servant having entrusted with and having dominion over the cash in Nirankari Colony post office committed criminal breach of trust in respect of the said property by encashing forged KVPs is also guilty u/s 409 IPC.
158. CONSPIRACY It is argued by Ld. Defence Counsels that there is no evidence of meeting of mind of the accused persons and no witness has testified that the accused persons had conspired with each other to commit this offence. On the other hand, Ld. Public Prosecutor submits that direct evidence of conspiracy is difficult to find and therefore the conspiracy can be proved only by proving incriminating circumstances. I agree with the submissions of Ld. Public Prosecutor. PW5 Sunil Krishan Nagar has testified as to how somewhere between the year 1995 to 2000, accused H.N. Pal got the designs of the postal stamp prepared from him. No explanation is forthcoming as to why accused H.N. Pal had the necessity to do so. PW8 has proved that accused H.N. Pal and accused Sohan Pal Sharma came to Dadri post office and used the postal stamps of Dadri post office used for Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 123 CC No. 01/10 stamping. PW9 Lala Ram Bharti and PW10 Nand Kishore has testified that during the year 1996 accused H.N. Pal had taken booklets of identity slips from post office Lodhi Road. Again, accused H.N. Pal and accused Sohan Pal do not explain the above stated conduct and why they required booklets of identity slips. The handwriting expert's (i.e. PW22) report proves that front portion of large number of KVPs purportedly issued from Dadri post office have been written by accused Sohan Pal Sharma and on the back side of these KVPs, accused Sanjeev Kumar has received the encashed amount by signing as Rajesh Kumar. As an example, I refer to KVP no. 31BB013188 Ext.PW22/62. The handwriting at Q12268 and Q12269 has been opined by the expert as tallying with the specimen handwriting of accused Sohan Pal Sharma (A3), whereas on the back side of this KVP, the handwriting Q12270, and the signatures of Rajesh Kumar which is Q12271 tally with the specimen handwriting of accused Sanjeev Kumar @ Kaka (A7). Same is true about the KVPs from Ext.PW22/63 to Ext.PW22/184. This fact proves that accused Sohan Pal Sharma and Sanjeev Kumar were acting in conspiracy with each other in forgery of these KVPs. Similarly, on the front of KVP No. 31BB010141 Ext.PW22/1, the handwriting at point Q6016 & Q6018 has been written by accused Sohan Pal Sharma (specimen handwriting S1 to S158) whereas on the back side of the KVP at Q6019 and Q6020 which are the handwriting and signatures purported to have been written by one 'Arun Kumar' have been written by accused Manoj Kumar (S284 to S356). Same is the situation in large number of KVPs purported to have been issued from post office Dadri. Further, accused Manoj Kumar is the son of accused Sohan Pal Sharma. Therefore, the forgeries of the above noted KVPs (taken as a sample) prove that accused Sohan Pal sharma, Sanjeev Kumar and Manoj Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 124 CC No. 01/10 Kumar are in conspiracy with each other in forging and encashing these KVPs.
Accused Sunil Kumar (A6) is proved to have forged the KVPs purported to have been issued from post office Panipat. As already discussed, accused Sunil Kumar has signed as 'S.C. Jain' and has encashed the KVPs.
Similarly, on the back portion of KVP no. 31BB006101 Ext.PW22/1070, accused H.N. Pal has signed as 'Rajesh Kumar' at Q14603 and received the payment of Rs. 7000/ vide handwriting at Q14602 as the same tally with his specimen handwriting (S825 to S968). Similarly, as per the expert's report, the handwriting on the front portion of this KVP at Q14600 & Q14601 tally with specimen handwriting of Sohan Pal Sharma (S1 to S158). Therefore, the handwriting expert's report as well as the testimony of PW5, PW8, PW9 & PW10 proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused Sohan Pal Sharma and H.N. Pal were acting in unison with each other.
I may further point out that most of these stolen KVPs were of '31BB' series. This further connects all the above accused persons with the conspiracy in question.
Accused Mahinder Singh Verma while acting as the Postmaster of Nirankari colony post office, not only conveniently allowed these large number of KVPs to be encashed, but also did not send the information to the post office Panipat City and Post Office Dadri (which were purportedly the post offices issuing these KVPs) in form NC10, which was a mandatory requirement, if a KVP which was issued from some other post office is presented. I may point out that encashing of a few such KVPs could have been treated as a case of negligence but encashing a large number of such Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 125 CC No. 01/10 KVPs without sending information in Form NC10 to the concerned issuing post office is a sure sign of the guilty mind. Accused Mahinder Singh Verma knew that if information of the encashment of these KVPs is sent to the issuing post office, they would immediately start inquiry because infact these KVPs were not issued from those post offices. Non sending of information u/s NC10 in case of any KVP in question signifies that accused Mahinder Singh Verma knew that these KVPs were stolen KVPs and had not been issued from the aforesaid post offices. I may point out that the presentation of so many KVPs purportedly issued from Panipat City should have naturally raised a suspicion as to why the presenter of the KVP is not getting encashed such KVP from Panipat City Post Office, which is not far off from Delhi. In view of above discussion, it is clear that accused Mahinder Singh Verma, the postmaster Nirankari Colony Post Office was instrumental in getting these KVPs encashed as he was an integral part of this conspiracy. I may add here that the way the KVPs in question have been encashed shows that no serious effort to check the identity of the holders of the KVPs has been made before encashing the same.
159. In view of above discussion, accused K.M. Singh (A1) and Laxman Prasad (A8) stand acquitted, whereas proceedings against accused Harish Chand have already abated on account of his death. Their bail bonds and surety bonds are cancelled.
160. However, I hold all the remaining accused persons guilty u/s 120B IPC read with Section 419/420/467/471/409 IPC further r/w Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 126 CC No. 01/10
161. I further convict accused Mahinder Singh Verma u/s 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and u/s 409 IPC.
162. I further convict accused Sunil Kumar, Sanjeev Kumar, H.N. Pal and Manoj Kumar u/s 419/420/467 and 471 IPC.
163. I further convict accused Sohan Pal Sharma u/s 467 IPC.
Announced in the open court on this 11th day of July, 2012 (VINOD KUMAR) SPECIAL JUDGEII CBI: ROHINI:
DELHI Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 127 CC No. 01/10 IN THE COURT OF SH. VINOD KUMAR SPL. JUDGE (PC ACT) (CBI)II, ROHINI, DELHI CC No. 1/2010 (Nirankari Colony Post Office CGHS) C B I Vs 1. Sohan Pal Sharma S/o Sh. Deep Chand R/o D74, Gagan Vihar, Delhi94.
2. Manoj Kumar @ Tinku S/o Sh. Sohan Pal Sharma @ Panditji R/o D74, Ganga Vihar, Delhi94.
3. Hari Narain Pal @ Neta S/o Sh. Hari Dutt R/o R1/14, Nawada Housing Complex, Uttam Nagar, new Delhi59.
4. Sunil Kumar S/o Sh. Mangal Ram R/o 56, Pocket1, DDA Janta Flats, Paschim Puri, New Delhi63.
5. Sanjeev Kumar @ Kala S/o Late Sh. Kundan Lal R/o BG6, 306A, Paschim Vihar, Delhi63.
6. Mahinder singh @ Mahinder Verma S/o Sh. Kanshi Ram R/o 492, Naipura Ward No.7, Loni Town, Near Bus Stand No.2,Ghaziabad, U.P. ORDER ON SENTENCE 13.7.2012 Present : Sh. Amrit Pal Singh, Ld. P. P. for CBI.
All convicts produced from J.C. Sh. Shailender Singh, adv. for convict Mahinder Singh Verma.
Sh. Kedar Yadav, adv. for convict Sohan Pal Sharma, Manoj Kumar and Sanjeev Kumar.
Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 128 CC No. 01/10 Sh. Manish Kumar, adv. is appearing on behalf of accused Sunil Kumar.
At the request of convict H. N. Pal, I appoint Sh. Manish Kumar, adv. to represent him as Amicus Curie.
Ld. Public Prosecutor has prayed for full doze of sentence against all the convicts on the ground that the offences are directed against the economy of the Nation and therefore no leniency should be shown to them. Ld. Public Proseutor has drawn my attention that maximum sentence of life imprisonment is provided for the offence under Section 409 IPC as well as under Section 467 IPC.
Ld. Public Prosecutor has submitted that convict H. N. Pal has been convicted by this court in CC No. 13/2008, accused Sohan Pal Sharma has already been convicted in three cases in CC No. 13/2008, 7/2009 and in another case of the similar nature by the court of Sh. Yogesh Khanna, Ld. Special Judge in the similar offence pertaining to Post Office Eastern Court. It is further submitted that convict Sanjeev Kumar had already been convicted in CC No. 13/2008.
It is argued by Sh. Manish Kumar, Ld. Counsel for convict Sunil Kumar that the entire family is dependent upon him. He has two children. It is submitted that his son is studying in 12th class, whereas his daughter is of marriageable age and is also doing under graduate course. It is submitted that a lenient view in sentencing may be taken so that the education and career of the children of convict Sunil Kumar is not affected.
Sh. Manish Kumar, Ld. Amicus Curie for convict H. N. Pal Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 129 CC No. 01/10 submits that convict H. N. Pal is having four children out of which three are daughters and of marriageable age and that his only son is a psychiatric patient. It is submitted that he is residing in a rented house. A higher doze of sentence would spoil the future of his children.
It is argued by Sh. Shailender Singh, adv. for convict Mahinder Singh Verma that he is 67 years old person and is suffering from various illnesses and that his old mother is totally dependent upon him and therefore it is prayed that a lenient view may be taken while sentencing him.
Sh. Kedar Yadav, adv. For convict Sohan Pal Sharma submits that he is 65 years and is suffering from various ailments. It is argued by Ld. Counsel that Manoj Kumar is the son of Sohan Pal Sharma and his wife and two minor children are totally dependent upon him. It is submitted that his two children are suffering from T.B. It is argued that if both the convicts are given higher doze of sentence, it will have ruinous effect on their family specially the children. It is argued by Sh. Kedar Yadav, adv. that convict Sanjeev Kumar is 47 years old and has five minor children to support apart from his wife.
It is therefore prayed by all the counsels for convicts that minimum sentence should be imposed in this case.
Arguments on sentence have been heard. I am of the opinion that forgery of valuable security, itself is a very serious offence. Although Sunil Kumar and Manoj Kumar are the first convicts in this case, however both of them have not only forged a large number of Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 130 CC No. 01/10 KVPs but have also got the same encashed by impersonating as another person. In view of their extensive role in the crime, I am not inclined to give them a lesser punishment than those who have already been convicted. In the present case the Government has suffered loss of more than one crore rupees. This huge loss of Government money aggravates the gravity of the crime of forging of valuable securities, which are punishable with sentence upto life imprisonment. Considering all facts and circumstances, I sentence the convicts as under :
1. Sohan Pal Sharma
(i) To undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and a fine in the sum of Rs.1000/ under Section 467 IPC. In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for one month.
(ii)To undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and a fine in the sum of Rs.1000/ under Section 120B IPC. In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for one month.
2. H. N. Pal, Sunil Kumar, Sanjeev Kumar, Manoj Kumar
(i) To undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 419 IPC.
(ii)To undergo simple imprisonment for three years and a fine in the sum of Rs.1000/ under Section 420 IPC. In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for one month.
Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 131 CC No. 01/10
(iii)To undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and a fine in the sum of Rs.1000/ under Section 467 IPC. In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for one month.
(iv)To undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine in the sum of Rs.1000/ under Section 471 IPC. In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for one month.
(v)To undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and a fine in the sum of Rs.1000/ under Section 120B IPC. In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for one month.
3. Mahender Singh Verma
(i) To undergo rigorous imprisonment for four year and a fine in the sum of Rs.1000/ each under Section 13 (2) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
(ii)To undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and a fine in the sum of Rs.1000/ each under Section 409 IPC. In default of payment of fine, they shall further undergo simple imprisonment for one month.
(iii)To undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and a fine in the sum of Rs.1000/ each under Section 120B IPC. In default of payment of fine, they shall further undergo simple imprisonment for one month.
All the sentences against all the aforesaid convicts shall run Judgment CBI Vs K.M. Singh etc. 132 CC No. 01/10 concurrently. Benefit under Section 428 CrPC may be given to them if they have remained in jail earlier in this case during the trial. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court on 13.7.2012.
(VINOD KUMAR) Spl. JudgeII, CBI Rohini Courts, Delhi