Delhi District Court
Cbi vs Parmod Kumar & Ved Ram on 30 April, 2015
1
IN THE COURT OF Ms. VEENA RANI, CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, DISTRICT SOUTH EAST, SAKET COURT, NEW DELHI.
CBI Versus Parmod Kumar & Ved Ram
RC No:11(S)/92/CBI/SCB/New Delhi
CC No:59/06/11
U/s 420/471/467/468/120B IPC
Date of filing of the charge sheet : 02091994
Date of reserving order : Not reserved.
Date of pronouncement : 29052015
JUDGMENT
(a) Serial Number of the case : 59/06 of 02062011
(b) The date of the commission of : During 1987 to 1992 the offence
(c) The name of the complainant : CBI on source information.
(d) The name of the accused : 1. Pramod Kumar S/o
person, his parentage and Gyan Chand, work
residential address Charge Mate, DDA,
R/o 1306/90A, Tank
Road, Tri Nagar,
Delhi35
2. Ved Ram S/o Jodha
Singh, Village
Bhopra, PO: Pasunda,
Distt. Ghaziabad, UP
(e) The offence complained of : U/s 420/471/467/468/120
B IPC
CBI Vs. Parmod Kumar & Ved Ram, CC No:56/6/2011, RC No:11(S)/92 2
(f) The plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
(g) The final order : Both accused Acquitted.
(h) The date of the order : 29052015
JUDGMENT
1. This case No. RC 11(S) / 92 Delhi was registered by the CBI / Spl. Crime Branch / Delhi on 20.08.1992 on the basis of the source information with the allegation that during the period 1986
- 1990 Shri Jai Parkash, Srichand, Rajendar Singh, Dharamvir Singh, and Sushil Kumar joined service in the DDA on 'work charge' basis on the strength of bogus / forged transfer order(s). Furthermore, in connivance with the DDA officials and unknown persons the accused persons forged the documents such as the appointment letters service book, transfer / posting orders purportedly under the signature of various competent authorities of the DDA and thus cheated to the tune to Rs.1.06, 417.10 by way of salary etc. reviewed by them. It is further the case of the prosecution that the proper procedure was not followed.
2. The CBI has explained the procedure in the chargesheet as under :
"When an employee is transferred from one division say D1 to another Division say D2, the transfer order is issued by Deputy / Asst. Director from the office of the said Zonal Chief Engineer. A copy of the said order is sent to D1 and D2 through the Peon Book of Zonal Chief Engineer. On the basis of the said transfer order, a relieving order is sent to the Executive Engineer D1 (Transferring Division) and a copy of the said relieving order is sent to the Zonal Chief Engineer as well as to the Executive CBI Vs. Parmod Kumar & Ved Ram, CC No:56/6/2011, RC No:11(S)/92 3 Engineer D2 (Transferee Division). .... The order is sent through the Peon Book. After that the transferred employee submits report in D2 and he posted to one of the subdivisions of D2 (Transferee Division).... order to this effect is issued by Executive Engineer D2. Again a copy of the said order is said to the Zonal Chief Engineer and Executive Engineer D1. So that the transferring division i.e. D1 knows about the joining of the transferred employee and it also facilitates the accounting aspect. The service book, personal file, and the LPC of the transferred employee are to be sent from D1 to D2 alongwith a forwarding letter."
3. The CBI has further alleged that the accused Sh. Pramod Kumar while working as 'work charge beldar' of DDA entered into a criminal conspiracy with the accused Sh. Ved Ram for the purpose of inducing him in the service of DDA as 'work charge employee' without any appointment order and on the basis of forged transfer / relieving order. The accused Sh. Ved Ram was never appointed in any of the divisions of DDA and there was no transfer order as mentioned in the service book.
4. The accused Pramod Kumar forged the service book and the personal file of accused Ved Ram by obtaining the official seal of ExEngineer of DDA (embossed with the signatures of the said engineer) and made the accused Ved Ram join the Eastern Division - 4 in the year 1985. The said ED4 was thus was induced to believe that Ved Ram was a 'work charge employee'. The accused Ved Ram drew salary and other benefits till the year 1992 from the said department. The GEQD has confirmed the handwriting of Sh. Pramod Kumar on the forges service book of the bogus appointee.
CBI Vs. Parmod Kumar & Ved Ram, CC No:56/6/2011, RC No:11(S)/92 4
5. On 13.02.1995 the charges u/s 120(B) r/w S.420, 467, 468, & 471 IPC were framed against both the accused persons. The accused Pramod Singh was also charged separately u/s 467, 468 IPC while the accused Ved Ram was also separately charged under S.420 & 471 IPC.
6. The CBI, in order to prove his case, examined the following witnesses: PW1 Sh. S. C. Chugh, Head Clerk, Electric Division No:4, DDA, during his examination deposed that all the correspondence used to be put up to him by dealing assistant and he used to put the same before Executive Engineer for approval. He deposed that either EC or Director(Work Charge) used to issue order for transfer of employees on work charge establishment from one division to another. He did not prepared any list of the work charge employee transferred from one division to another. He further deposed that the copies of the establishment orders transferring work charge employee from one division to another are sent to both the divisions from where the employee is transferred as well as to which the employee is transferred and one copy of the same is given to concerned employees. This witness further stated that it is the diarist who is responsible for sending the copies of the posting orders, to the dispatcher to the branched and concerned officials after making necessary entries in the peon book and dispatch register etc. On receipt of transfer orders the transferring division issues relieving orders on receipt of the copy of the orders. The relieving orders are issued by the Head Clerk and are signed by Executive Engg. and the proposal is initiated by the dealing assistant and the copies of the relieving orders are CBI Vs. Parmod Kumar & Ved Ram, CC No:56/6/2011, RC No:11(S)/92 5 also sent to the division where the employee is transferred and copy of the same is also given to the employee transferred. The said documents are sent after making entries in the peon book and acknowledgment is obtained from the transferee division. Witness deposed that if any employee claims to have been transferred to a division he can not be allowed to join without receipt of EO transferring him to that division an without receiving his relieving orders by the division from which he has been transferred.
This witness was not cross examined by the accused persons despite opportunity.
PW2 Brahm Singh, Head Clerk, LAB(Housing, in his chief examination deposed that he had worked with accused Pramod Kumar but he can not identify his handwriting and signature even if shown to him. This witness was cross examined by Ld. APP and during his cross examination he denied the suggestion that he had joined hands with the accused or that he is intentionally refusing to recognize his signatures and handwriting.
This witness was also not cross examined by the accused persons despite opportunity.
PW3 Sh. R.K. Jain , Dy. Govt. Examiner, of Questioned documents, Simla, deposed that documents marked Q 191 to Q 196, Q 387 to Q 402 in service book pertaining to Ved Ram Ex. PW3/A, Q 537 to Q...(page torn) in personal file of Ved Ram Ex.PW3/B were received as disputed documents in their office from SP CBI SCB New Delhi. The specimen signature of Parmod Kumar marked S56 to S67 and S261 to S333 in marked A( exhibited in file No:43/2) also recd for comparison and on comparison of these documents I came to the opinion that the persons who wrote CBI Vs. Parmod Kumar & Ved Ram, CC No:56/6/2011, RC No:11(S)/92 6 writings and signatures marked S56 to S67 and S261 to S333 also wrote writing and signatures marked Q 193 to Q 196, Q 395 to Q 401. His opinion is emboded in para 4 of his report Ex.PW3/C and original of the same is placed in file No:40/2, CBI Vs. Ramesh Kumar etc. His report is common in all the 16 cases. The report is signed by him as well as by Sh. Santokh Singh Govt.Examinder who has also examined the documents of this case independently and arrived at the same conclusion. The detailed reasons for his report is Ex.PW3/D. The negatives which are in 21 wallets pertaining to all the disputed and standard writings are Ex. PW5/D1 to D21. The photographs of all these relevant documents are in one envelope which is Ex. PW5/E1 to PE5/E308.
During his cross examination dated 14599, by Sh. Atul Sharma Advocate for accused persons, witness stated that he does not have the specimen of Jai Ram, Ved Ram, Babu Ram, Leelu, Prem Singh, Suman Kumar and Munish Kumar. It is stated by PW that he has been trained being handwriting expert for three years in Govt. of India Laboratory and Hyderabad and woring for the last about 30 years in this field , however, he is not being awarded any such diploma but he worked as faculty member in that Institute during the first diploma course. He further stated that the opinion expressed by a competent and thorough expert are also correct and thee are no chance of error. He denied that the opinion expressed by a competent and thorough export is not correct and conclusive. PW admitted that in respect of CS Saini the opinion is expressed only in the word Parveen Kumar and at one point word Chowkidar also. He denied that his opinion is wrong and not conclusive being incomplete facts and being based on incomplete science.
During his cross examination by Sh. Gurubachan Singh, counsel for CBI Vs. Parmod Kumar & Ved Ram, CC No:56/6/2011, RC No:11(S)/92 7 accused Parmod Kumar, PW stated that he has not given any opinion on the disputed signatures RN Dadlani in comparison with specimen writing of Parmod Kumar including the writing mark S323 to S 328. He admitted that he has not given any opinion on the disputed signatures of Executive Engg.in comparision with the specimen writing of Parmod Kumar. He further stated that he has not given any opinion on Q 409 and Q 410. He denied that his opinion is impartially and without applying any mind.
During his cross examination by Sh.K.K. Tyagi counsel for accused, PW stated that he has not received the specimen writing of the person called Dharamvir, Jai Parkash, Kishan Pal, Beepat Ram and Raj Pal.
PW4
Shri
Ajay Rawat, Vigilance Officer, GAIL, USAR
(Maharashtra) deposed that in the year 1992 I was working as Sub
Inspector of Police/CBI/SCB, New Delhi. I worked in this branch from Sept. 1990 till Feb., 1993. The present case was assigned to me for investigation in the year 1992 (August). This case was regd. On the basis of source information recd. That in DDA during the period 1986 to 1990 certain persons were fraudulently appointed on the strength of bogus/forged transfer orders. Since these persons were never employed by the DDA, the transfer orders vide which they joined DDA were forged. Today I have been shown the FIR dt. 20.8.1992 which is signed by Shri Ashok Kumar, the then SP, CBI, SCB, New Delhi. The same was assigned to me for detail investigation. During the investigation, I had contacted various DDA officers in Delhi and collected all the relevant documents including service books, transfer orders, relieving orders etc. During the investigation, searches were also conducted at various places in order to seize relevant documents and also to find out the various suspects involved in this case. I had also recorded the statements of various DDA officers CBI Vs. Parmod Kumar & Ved Ram, CC No:56/6/2011, RC No:11(S)/92 8 and other witnesses. Specimen handwritings and Signatures of various suspected persons/officials were also taken by me. The same were sent to GEQB for opinion. I have seen FIR No. RC 11/S/92DLI Dt. 20.8.1992 u/s 120B r/w 420, 467,468 and 471 IPC lodged against the accused persons. It bears the signature of Sh. Ashok Kr. Supdt. Of Police, CBI, SCB, New Delhi at pointA. I identify his signature as I have seen him writing and signing. The FIR is Ex. PW5/A1, upon the basis which investigation chargesheet was filed agst. The accused persons by Sh. Akhil Kaushik, Inspector, CBI, SCB, New Delhi. I have also seen seizure memo dt. 28.9.92 which bears my signature at pointA. This seizure memo was prepared after seizing 15 files from Estern Div. No. IV/DDA. The same is Ex. PW5/A2. Similarly a seizure memo dt. 19.10.92 is Ex. PW5/A3 it bears my signature at point - A. I have seen receipt memo dt. 11.1.93 vide which Sh. S.N. Gupta, Dy. Director, Vigilance, DDA had sent 5 files as listed in it to Supdt. Of Police, CBI. The same is Ex. PW/A4. I had received service book and personal file of Shri Krishan Pal Singh vide letter dt. 28.10.92 from Executive Engineer Ed6/DDA. The same is Ex. PW5/A5. A seizure memo dt. 19.10.92 through which documents which are listed from Sr. No. 1 to 6 were seized from Sh. R.P. Singh, Head Clerk, DDA by me, it bears my signature at point - A. The same is Ex. PW5/A6. Similarly, seizure memo dt. 23.9.92 through which two files were seized from Head Clerk, ED/VIII, DDA by me and it bears my signature at point - A. The same is Ex. PW 4/A7. Another seizure DDA by me and it bears my signature at point - A. Seizure memo is Ex. PW 4/A8. Another seizure memo dt. 20.8.92 through which 10 files were seized from AVO, DDA by me and it bears my signature at point - A. The seizure memo is Ex. PW 4/A9. I have seen Establishment order (2 nos. pages) sent by Asstt. Director, Admn. II, CE CBI Vs. Parmod Kumar & Ved Ram, CC No:56/6/2011, RC No:11(S)/92 9 (EZ) office DDA vide which they had sent 34 EO numbers which have details of genuine number as well as forged Eos number received from CBI office by AD (Admn.) the same are Ex. PW 4/A10. Likewise another Establishment order sent by Asstt. Director, Admn. II CE (EZ) office, DDA vide which they had sent 34 EO numbers received from CBI office AD (Admn.) the same are Ex. PW 4/A11, consists of 3 pages and both of these establishment orders bears signatures of Asstt. Director Admn. at point - A. I have seen specimen signature/handwriting of Mahender Singh running into 29 sheets and same bears my signatures at point - A on each sheets which are Ex. PW 4/A1 to A29. Further I have seen specimen/handwriting of Sh. Mahender Singh running into 37 sheets and the same bears my signature on each sheets at point - A which are Ex. PW 4/B 1 to B37. Likewise I have seen specimen handwriting of R.S. Nim running into 45 sheets and the same bears my signatures at point - A on each sheets which are Ex. PW 4/C1 to C46. I have seen specimen signature of R.S. Nim running into 38 sheets, it bears my signatures at point - A on each sheets which are Ex. PW 4/D1 to D38. I have seen specimen handwriting/signature or Pramod Kr. running into 12 sheets and the same bears my signature at point - A on each sheets which are Ex. PW 5/E1 to E12. Likewise I have seen specimen handwriting of Pramod Kr. Running into 28 sheets and the same bears my signatures at point - A on each sheet which are Ex. PW 4/ F1 to F28. I have also seen specimen hadnwriting/signature of Pramod Kr. Running into 45 sheet it bears my signature at point - A on each sheets which are Ex. PW 4/ G 1 to G45. I have also seen specimen signatures/handwriting of Ramesh Kr. Running into 18 sheets, it bears my signature at point A which are Ex. PW 4/H1 to H18. I have also seen specimen signatures/handwriting of Ramesh Kr. CBI Vs. Parmod Kumar & Ved Ram, CC No:56/6/2011, RC No:11(S)/92 10 Running into 38 sheets. The first sheet bears my signature at point - A which has already been marked as Ex. PW4/C. Rest of the 37 sheets bears my signatures at pointA which are Ex. PW 4/I1 to I37. I have also seen handwriting bears my signatures at pointA on each sheets which are Ex. PW 4/J1 to J15. Further I have also seen handwriting/signature of Subhash Dhame running into 28 sheets, it bears my signature at pointA on each sheet and which are Ex. PW 4/K1 to K28. I have also seen specimen handwriting/signature of C.S. Saini Running into 16 sheet, it bears my signature at point - A on each page and which are Ex. PW 4/ L 1 to L16. I have also seen specimen handwriting/signature of C.S. Saini running into 54 sheets, it bears my signature at point - A on each sheet which are Ex. PW 4/ M 1 to M54. I have also seen specimen handwriting/signature of G.L. Khurana Running into 7 sheets, it bears my signature at point - A on each sheets which are Ex. PW 4/ N 1 to N7. I have also seen specimen handwriting/signature of R.L. Padianl running into 6 sheets, it bears my signature at point - A on each sheets which are Ex. PW 4/ O 1 to O6. I have also seen specimen handwriting/signature of R.L. Jain running into 3 sheets, it bears my signature at point - A on each sheets which are Ex. PW 4/ P 1 to P3. I have also seen specimen handwriting/signature of K.D. Sharma running into 3 sheets, it bears my signature at point - A on each sheets which are Ex. PW 4/ Q 1 to Q3. I have also seen specimen handwriting/signature of I.M. Mathur running into 6 sheets, it bears my signatures at point - A on each sheet which are already marked B1 to B6. I have also seen specimen handwriting/signature of Lal Chand Aggarwal, running into 6 sheets, it bears my signature at point - A on each sheet first and second sheet are Ex. PW 4/R1 to R2 and remaining four sheets are already marked A1 to CBI Vs. Parmod Kumar & Ved Ram, CC No:56/6/2011, RC No:11(S)/92 11 A4.
During his cross examination by ld. Defence counsel PW4 Ajay Rawat deposed that in the year 1992, I was working as SI of police, CBI, SCB, New Delhi. I worked in this branch from Sept. 1990 till Feb. 1993. The present case was assigned to me for the investigation in the year 1992, August. This case was registered on the basis of source information, received, that in DDA during the period 1986 to 1990 certain persons were fradulantly appointed on the strength of bogus/forged transfer orders. Since, these persons were never employed by DDA, the transfer orders vide which they joined DDA, were forged. Today, I have been shown a photocopy of FIR dated 20.8.92 which is signed by Sh. Ashok Kr., the then SP, CBI, SCB, New Delhi. The same was assigned to me for detailed investigation. I have been shown original FIR which lies in C.S. No. 4/2 and the same has been compared by me with the photocopy. During the investigation I had contacted various DDA officers in Delhi and collected all the relevant documents including service books, transfer orders, relieving orders etc. During the investigations, searches were conducted at various places in order to seize relevant documents and also to find out the various suspects involved in this case. I had also recorded the statements of various DDA officials, another witnesses. Specimen handwriting and signatures of Pramod Kumar, G.L. Khurana, R.N. Dadlani, R.C. Jain, K.D. Sharma, I.M. Mathur and Lal Chand were also taken by me and the same were sent to GEQD for opinion. I have seen photocopy of FIR No. RC 11(S)/92, DLI dated 20.8.92, u/s 120B, r/w 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC lodged against the accused persons and it bears the signatures of Ashok Kr. SP, CBI, New Delhi at point A. I identify his signatures as I have seen him and signing in day to day official working. The FIR is Ex. PW 4/A1. On the basis of CBI Vs. Parmod Kumar & Ved Ram, CC No:56/6/2011, RC No:11(S)/92 12 which investigation was conducted. After the completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed against the accused persons by Sh. Akhil Kaushik, Inspector, CBI, SCB, New Delhi. I have also seen photocopy of seizure memo dated 19.10.92. Original of the same is lying in chargesheet no. 56/2. I have compared the photocopy with original one. It bears my signature at point A. Vide the seizure memo 8 documents were seized including three personal file and service book of Mr. Lilu Sharma. And the same is Ex. PW 4/A2. I have seen service book of Lilu Sharma which bears Ex. PW 4/A (Already Ex.) I have also seen personal file of Lilu Sharma from page 1 to 5, 6 to 20 and 21 to 85 respectively contained in three files. The same was seized by me which is Ex. PW 4/A3, A4, and A5 respectively. I have been shown specimen handwriting/signatures of Pramod Kumar running into page 1 to 85 which bears my signatures at point A on each sheet which is Ex. PW 4/A6. I have been shown specimen initials/signatures of G.L. Khurana marked as S 530 to 536 and specimen signatures of Sh. R.N. Dadlani from S 165 to S 170 and specimen signature of R.C. Jain from S 172 to 174 and specimen signature of K.D. Sharma from S 181 to S 183, specimen signature of I.M. Mathur from S 184 to S 189, specimen signature of Lal Chand Adwani from S 190 to S 195. All the specimen signatures bears my signature at point A which is Ex. PW 4/ A7. I have been shown GEQD opinion dated 26.11.93 which pertains to this case. As I have already mentioned that I worked in this branch till Feb. 93 this opinion was received later on after my transfer from this branch.
During his cross examination by Sh. R. Menon counsel for the accused, PW4 Ajay Rawat deposed that there was no written complaint from DDA and this FIR was lodged on source information by me. My Sr. Officer recd. source information. There was not much of gap may be one CBI Vs. Parmod Kumar & Ved Ram, CC No:56/6/2011, RC No:11(S)/92 13 week in our receiving information and lodging the FIR. FIR is dated 1992. I do not remember the month. I had investigated the case till March 1993. I had to leave the investigation because I was transferred to ACUVI. After I was transferred the charge of investigation and later chargesheet was prepared and filed by Sh. Akhil Kaushik. As and when it was required I was called for assisting Mr. Akhil Kaushik who was then the IO.
During the cross examination of PW4, defence counsel has stated that the cross examination done by Ms. Anjana Prabhakar Adv. Accused Ramesh Kr. May kindly be read in Xexamination as part and parcel of all the cases. Heard and allowed.
PW4 Ajay Rawat further stated that during my investigation, I might have examined officials lower level then Execute Engineer who know about the procedure of the transfer. Since, Head Clerk and others are generally dealing with transfer. I do not remember whether any clerk has given me statement regarding the procedure for transfer of an employee from one deptt. of another. It is wrong to suggest the investigation of this case was transfered from me as I was shielding Sr. Officers Voln. The case was handed over to Mr. Kaushik because I was transferred on promotion. I obtained the signatures of accused persons in my office, in the presence of independent witnesses. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely.
In his cross examination y Ms. Anjana Barbhakar, adv. for accused Ramesh Kumar, PW4 deposed as under: It is correct that EXPW3/A1 is carbon copy of FIR. It is correct that I can tell designation of a person who had signed EXPW3/A10 and A11, same are not written in my presence. It is only after seeing documents I cannot tell person who had signed it. These documents were perhaps received by post. It is correct that EO number mentioned in EXW3/A10 CBI Vs. Parmod Kumar & Ved Ram, CC No:56/6/2011, RC No:11(S)/92 14 and A11 had not been collected by me. I have not recorded statements of persons who have signed EXPW3/A10 and A11. It is wrong to suggest that specimen writing of accused was taken again and again at different point of time because hand writing expert was unable to express his opinion. It is incorrect to suggest that I have not conducted investigation in this case properly. It is incorrect to suggest that specimen writing of accused Ramesh Kumar was not taken by me. It is incorrect to suggest that I am deposing falsely. I have gone through the record. The Establishment Order (EOO are only relieving and transfer orders. In our second initial EO or appointment letters are bogus and after the joining subsequent EO are genuine. I have not compared the subsequent orders which are genuine. It is incorrect to suggest that accused Pramod Kumar was only filing up the forms and not signing the relieving and transfer orders. Transfer orders are either signed by AE or Executive Engineers. I have examined the concerned Executive Engineers and they have confirmed that relevant transfer orders/appointment letters were never issued from their office. It is not in my knowledge those Enginers Suptds have been examined on oath in this Hon'ble Court. It is wrong to suggest that accused Pramod Kumar have been falsely implicated in this case and the investigation as far as this accused is concerned is not proper or that I am deposing falsely to support the case of the prosecution. I do not remember whether the statement given by Head Clerk Braham Singh was in my handwriting or somebody else, but it is a fact that the statement was not written by PW Braham Singh or any other witness for that matter. The statement u/s 161 of the witnesses were written in their presence but their signatures were not obtained on those statements. I do not remember what statement u/s 161 Head Clerk Braham Singh gave whether it was in favour of Pramod CBI Vs. Parmod Kumar & Ved Ram, CC No:56/6/2011, RC No:11(S)/92 15 Kumar or against. It is not in my knowledge Head Clerk Braham Singh had resigned from his previous statement u/s 161 or not. It is incorrect that original relieving and transfer orders are not on record.
(During the cross examination of PW4 Ms. Anjana Prabhakar counsel for the accused Pramod Kumar stated that the cross examination of the witness in CBI V/s Ramesh Kumar C.C. No. 40/2 and 5/2 on 12/7/2002) may kindly be considered as part and parcel of the cross examination of the witness for accused Pramod Kumar also. The cross examination only till the general nature and not specific to accused Ramesh Kumar) PW4 further during his cross examination stated that the employment of Leelu Sharma, Babu, Ram, Ved Ram Suman Kumar, Jai Ram and Prem Singh was not done in a regular basis but they were employed in the DDA through a scheme. And, they were employed in the DDA through a proper procedure followed for the appointment of any employee in DDA. It is correct that all the above mentioned employees were transferred alongwith the scheme from one division to another scheme. I cannot say whether they were transferred alongwith the scheme from one division to another scheme. I cannot say whether they were transferred from HD 14 to HD 19. It is in my knowledge that accused Pramod Kumar was working in one of the divisions but I cannot say that he was working in HD 19. I do not recall whether there was any head clerk in that division. It is correct that Dadalani was one of the Executive Enginers, I cannot say whether he was heading that division or not where Pramod Kumar was appointed. I do not know who was Superintendent Engineer (SE) of that circleIII. I cannot say that R.B. Dadlani was heading both the division i.e. Sh. R.L. Dadlani u/s 161 Cr.P.C. it is not in CBI Vs. Parmod Kumar & Ved Ram, CC No:56/6/2011, RC No:11(S)/92 16 my knowledge whether R.L. Dadlani had taken the specimen signatures of R.L. Dadlani and also his signatures on various documents including service book etc. for comparison and sent these signatures to GEQD. It is correct that GEQD has mentioned that his specimen signatures are not tallying with signatures appearing on the questioned documents. Pramod Kumar's specimen signatures were taken on different occassion as and when the files were recd. from various divisions where signatures were alleged to be forged by the accused persons. I had been shown the document listed as D_13 which indicates the list of forged Eos recd. from CBI office by Addl. Director to Chief Engineer and this tally also indicates about the list of genuine Eos on page 2 EO No. 363 dt. 8.10.87 of Leelu Sharma indicates the signatures are genuine of Sh. R.L. Madan but I cannot comment as Sh. Akhil Kaushik had dealt with this aspect after I was transferred in the year 199 I cannot ascertain at this point of time whether I had taken signatures of above mentioned four employees and compared them with those of Sh. Pramod Kumar. As far as D 14 which is the opinion of handwriting expert Sh. R.K. Jain is concerned it had also been recd. after my transfer and dealt with by Mr. Akhil Kaushik so I cannot comment on that also. The personal file contains the various documents including the alleged transfer order/relieving order. I have gone through the original and as per the personal file of Sh. Lilu Sharma he joined DDA vide Establishment order No. 18 dt. 25.2.87 and there is no transfer reliving order in case of Sh. Lilu Sharma. PW5 is mentioned as Parmod Kumar, whose name has been wrongly mentioned in place of PW4 Ajay Rawat.
PW6 PW Sh. Akhil Kaushik Inspector, CBI, Dehradun, during his CBI Vs. Parmod Kumar & Ved Ram, CC No:56/6/2011, RC No:11(S)/92 17 examination in chief dt 2372003, deposed that in 1992 he was posted as Sub Inspector in CBI, Spl. Crime Branch, deposed that Sh.Ajay Rawat investigated and completed the investigation and further investigation of the case was handed over to him and in the present case he(Akhil Kaushik) recorded the statement of some witnesses and filed the charge sheet in the court. Chargesheet which bears his signature at point A and is Ex.PW6/Ex.1/A. Charge sheet also bears the signature of Ashok Kumar the then SP, CBI, SCB at point B. The list of witnesses and documents appeared with the charge sheet also contains his signature at point A, Ex.PW5/Ex1/B. During his cross examination dated 19112002, PW denied the suggestion that has not done any investigation in the present case or that charge sheet has not been prepared by him. He further stated that he does not remember that if he had conducted and written statement for few witnesses after Mr. Ajay Rawat(1st IO) had been transferred, however, he has only signed and presented the charge sheet.
7. Statements of the accused(s) recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. Both the accused have stated that they have been falsely implicated in the case. Both the accused chose not to lead defense evidence.
8. Sections 463 and 464 IPC are as under : S.463. Forgery. Whoever makes any false document or part of a document with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any CBI Vs. Parmod Kumar & Ved Ram, CC No:56/6/2011, RC No:11(S)/92 18 express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery.
S. 464. Making a false document. [A person is said to make a false document or false electronic record. First--Who dishonestly or fraudulently--
(a) makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document;
(b) makes or transmits any electronic record or part of any electronic record;
(c) affixes any digital signature on any electronic record;
(d) makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or the authenticity of the digital signature, with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of document, electronic record or digital signature was made, signed, sealed, executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed, executed or affixed; or Secondly--Who, without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document or an electronic record in any material part thereof, after it has been made, executed or affixed with digital signature either by himself or by any other person, whether such person be living or dead at the time of such alteration; or CBI Vs. Parmod Kumar & Ved Ram, CC No:56/6/2011, RC No:11(S)/92 19 Thirdly--Who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document or an electronic record or to affix his digital signature on any electronic record knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot, or that by reason of deception practised upon him, he does not know the contents of the document or electronic record or the nature of the alteration.]
9. Section 463 IPC deals with making a false document with the intent to cause damage or injury to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or with the intention that fraud may be committed. Since Section 463 IPC deals with "making false documents", obviously, one has to turn to Section 464 IPC which defines under what circumstances, a document is said to be made falsely. A bare perusal of Section 464 IPC clearly reveals that a person is said to make a false document when it is done with dishonest and fraudulent intention, when a part of document is made with the intention of causing it to be believed that such a document was made, signed, sealed, executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the authority of a person whom or by whose authority, the maker knows that it was not made, signed, sealed, executed or affixed by the said authority. Moreover, if the maker, without a lawful authority, cancelled or otherwise altered the said document after the document was made. Only under these circumstances is it said a document is made falsely.
CBI Vs. Parmod Kumar & Ved Ram, CC No:56/6/2011, RC No:11(S)/92 20 S. 468 IPC :: Forgery for purpose of cheating : Whoever commits forgery, intending that the [document or Electronic Record forged] shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
10.A bare perusal of the said section clearly reveals that first ingredient of Section 468 IPC is the commission of forgery i.e., as defined in Section 463 IPC. It is only after the forgery has been committed that one would examine the purpose of committing forgery i.e., whether it is done for the purpose of cheating or not? However, in the present case, since the first ingredient is conspicuously missing i.e., commission of forgery, the charge for offence under Section 468 IPC could not be framed.
Section 471 IPC is as under: Using as genuine a forged [document or electronic record] -- Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any [document or electronic record] which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged [document or electronic record], shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such [document or electronic record].
The Expert Evidence :
11. An expert really means a person who by reason of his training or experience is qualified to express an opinion whereas an ordinary witness is not competent to do so. His evidence is only opinion evidence which is based on his special CBI Vs. Parmod Kumar & Ved Ram, CC No:56/6/2011, RC No:11(S)/92 21 skill or experience. In view of the language of Section 45 of Evidence Act it is necessary that before a person can be characterized as an expert, there must be some material on the record to show that he is one who is skilled in that particular science and is possessed of peculiar knowledge concerning the same. He must have made special study of the subject or acquired special experience therein. Thus before the testimony of a witness becomes admissible, his competency as an expert must be shown may be by showing that he was possessed of necessary qualification or that he has acquired special skill therein by experience. Apart form the question that the report of a handwriting expert may be read in evidence, what is necessary is that the expert should be subjected to cross examination because an expert like any other witness is fallible and the value of his evidence consists in the rightful inferences which he draws from what he merely surmises. The expert's evidence is only a piece of evidence and the weight to be given to it has to be judged along with other evidence as evidence of this nature is ordinarily not conclusive. Such evidence, therefore, cannot be taken as substantive piece of evidence but is there in corroborate the other evidence. (Balkrishna Das v. Radha Devi AIR 1989 All 133)
12. The science of handwriting was not an exact science unlike the science of fingerprints. Even experts tend to commit errors in giving their opinions on the genuineness of the signatures and handwriting. Sometimes it would be difficult for an expert to examine even the genuineness of different writings, each having its own individuality. It requires intelligent comparison to differentiate the genuine signature from the forged one. CBI Vs. Parmod Kumar & Ved Ram, CC No:56/6/2011, RC No:11(S)/92 22 Great care and caution should be exercised especially when the court was not assisted of the evidence of an expert in determining the genuineness of a signature or handwriting. Even while calling expert, that if one cannot get a competent man, it was better not to adduce any expert evidence at all. (Vandavasi Karthikeya alias Krishnamurthy v. S. Kamalamma AIR 1994 AP 102 at 114)
13. The question concerning the evidentiary value of the opinion of a hand writing expert in the context of Sections 45 and 47 of the Evidence Act, 1872 has been considered in a number of decisions of the Supreme Court. In Fakhruddin v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1967 SC 1326 it was observed as under:
"10. Evidence of the identity of handwriting receives treatment in three sections of the Evidence Act. They are Sections 45, 47 and 73. Handwriting may be proved on admission of the writer, by the evidence of some witness in whose presence he wrote. This is direct evidence and if it is available the evidence of any other kind is rendered unnecessary. The Evidence Act also makes relevant the opinion of a handwriting expert (Section 45) or of one who is familiar with the writing of a person who is said to have written a particular writing. Thus besides direct evidence which is of course the best method of proof, the law makes relevant two other modes. A writing may be proved to be in the handwriting of a particular individual by the evidence of a person familiar with the handwriting of that individual or by the testimony of an expert competent to the comparison of handwritings on a scientific basis. A third method (Section 73) is comparison by the Court with a writing made in the presence of the Court or admitted or proved to be the writing of the person.
Both under Section 45 and Section 47 the evidence is an opinion, in the former by a scientific comparison and in the latter on the basis of familiarity resulting from frequent CBI Vs. Parmod Kumar & Ved Ram, CC No:56/6/2011, RC No:11(S)/92 23 observations and experience. In either case the Court must satisfy itself by such means as are open that the opinion may be acted upon. "
14. In the present case the witness PW P.L. Nagpal has stated that he had worked with the accused Pramod Kumar, however, he was unable to identify the handwriting and signatures of the said accused. This turned hostile as he was not supporting his earlier statement. Therefore the CBI has not been able to prove the handwriting of the accused Pramod Kumar visàvis S.47 of the Indian Evidence Act.
15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Murari Lal vs. State of M.P. (AIR 1980 SC 531) considered the approach to be adopted and the caution to be observed while considering the opinion evidence of handwriting expert under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act 1872. The Supreme Court observed that while corroboration may not be insisted upon as an invariable rule, the approach of a court while dealing with opinion of handwriting expert should be to proceed cautiously, probe the reasons of opinion, consider all other relevant evidence and decide finally to accept or reject it. In paras 11 and 12 of the said judgment it was observed:
"We are firmly of the opinion that there is no rule of law, nor any rule of prudence which has crystallised into a rule of law, that opinion evidence of a handwriting expert must never be acted upon, unless substantially corroborated. But, having due regard to the imperfect nature of the science of identification of handwriting, the approach, as we indicated earlier, should be one of caution. Reasons for the opinion must be carefully CBI Vs. Parmod Kumar & Ved Ram, CC No:56/6/2011, RC No:11(S)/92 24 probed and examined. All other relevant evidence must be considered. In appropriate cases, corroboration may be sought. In cases where the reasons for the opinion are convincing and there is no reliable evidence throwing a doubt, the uncorroborated testimony of a handwriting expert may be accepted."
16. Handwriting expert basing his conclusion about identity of the accused who had written the questioned documents by comparing the same with the sample writing (which in his opinion appeared to be disguised) merely on the ground that there was some similarity in some of the letters and figures occurring in the sample handwritings here and there and similar letters and figures appearing in questioned documents. Such opinion of expert not corroborated by reliable evidence and hence cannot be relied upon. In absence of corroboration such evidence cannot be relied upon and prosecution case failed to be proved beyond reasonable doubts regarding identity of the accused. (State of U.P., v. Charles Gurmukh Sobhraj, 1996 Cri LJ 3844 : (1996) 9 SCC 472 : 1996 SCC 1065).
17. It is also to be remembered that comparison of handwriting is an imperfect science and an expert would not be able to state with 100% certainty that a particular signature is that of the person who purportedly signed it. He can only state that there is high probability and this he has done in his report. (M.K. Usman Koya v. C.S. Santha, AIR 2003 Ker 191 at 193) CBI Vs. Parmod Kumar & Ved Ram, CC No:56/6/2011, RC No:11(S)/92 25
18. Coming to the expert opinion of Sh. R.K. Jain, Dy. GEQD. The said witness has admitted that he did not have the specimen signatures of the accused. He further admitted that he had not given any opinion on the disputed signatures of R.N. Dadlani in comparison with the specimen writing of Pramod Kumar including the writing Mark S323 to S328. This PW also admitted that he had not given any opinion on the disputed signature of Executive Eng. in comparison with the specimen writing of Pramod Kumar. This PW also did not give any opinion on Q409 and S410.
19. PW(I.O.) Ajay Rawat has admitted that the employment of the accusedherein was not done in a 'Regular Basis' but he was employed in the DDA through a scheme. He further admitted that the accusedherein was transferred alongwith the scheme from one division to another scheme. The said witness PW4 further admitted that the document listed as D13 (which indicates the list of forced EO records) also indicates the list of genuine Eos on page 2 EO No. 363 dt. 08.10.1987 of accused indicates that the signatures of Sh. R.L. Madan were genuine.
As per PW/IO, the personal file of accused herein indicates
that he had joined the DDA and there was no
transfer /relieving order in case of accused herein.
20. As far as the expression 'benefit of doubt' is concerned the Third Edition of P.Ramanatha Aiyar's 'Law Lexicon' explains 'benefit of doubt' as "The advantage derived from doubt about guilt, a possible error or the weight of the evidence". This expression is not (and possibly cannot be) defined either in the Code of Criminal procedure or in the Indian Evidence Act. This expression cannot exist alone and it always follows as an adjunct of the expression 'proof beyond reasonable doubt'. CBI Vs. Parmod Kumar & Ved Ram, CC No:56/6/2011, RC No:11(S)/92 26
21. Sir James Fritzjames Stephen, the father of the Indian Evidence Act, in his epic work 'The Indian Evidence Act : with an Introduction on the Principles of Judicial Evidence' (Macmillan Co., London, 1872 at page 36) has stated:
"It is commonly said in reference to judicial inquiries, that in criminal cases guilt ought to be proved "beyond all reasonable doubt," and that in civil cases the decision ought to be in favour of the side which is most probably right. ...The question, what sort of doubt is "reasonable" in criminal cases is a question of prudence. Hardly any case ever occurs in which it is not possible for an ingenious person to suggest hypotheses consistent with the prisoner's innocent. The hypothesis of falsehood on the part of the witnesses can never be said to be more than highly improbable.
22. The following passage of Lord Sankey, L.C. in Woolmington vs. Director of Public Prosecutions (1935 ALL E.R.Page 1) is often quoted: "Throughout the web of the English criminal law one golden thread is always to be seenthat is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner's guilt subject to what I have already said as to the defence of insanity and subject also to any statutory exception. If, at the end of and on the whole of the case, there is a reasonable doubt, created by the evidence given by either the prosecution or the prisoner, as to whether the prisoner killed the deceased with a malicious intention, the prosecution has not made out the case and the prisoner is entitled to an acquittal. No matter what the charge or where the trial, the principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the prisoner is part of the common law of England and no attempt to whittle it down can be entertained."
23. The concept of 'proof beyond reasonable doubt' and 'benefit of doubt' have been imported into our Criminal Jurisprudence by CBI Vs. Parmod Kumar & Ved Ram, CC No:56/6/2011, RC No:11(S)/92 27 Superior Courts and they have come to stay now. In a criminal case, it is the burden on the prosecution to prove various relevant facts and it is enough if the quality of proof satisfies the definition of the word 'Proved' in Sec.3. At that juncture, the Court should not test the evidence on the anvil of the concept of 'proof beyond reasonable doubt', but should test it on the touchstone of the definition of the word 'Proved' in Sec.3. After all the relevant facts are proved, while drawing inference from the proved facts, if the Judge has a reasonable doubt about coming to the inference in respect of the fact in issue, then only the benefit of that doubt should be extended to the accused. This principle has been very clearly explained by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana vs. Bhagirath & Others (1999 (5) SCC 96) as follows: ".....But the principle of benefit of doubt belongs exclusively to criminal jurisprudence. The pristine doctrine of benefit of doubt can be invoked when there is reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused. It is the reasonable doubt which a conscientious judicial mind entertains on a conspectus of the entire evidence that the accused might not have committed the offence, which affords the benefit to the accused at the end of the criminal trial. Benefit of doubt is not a legal dosage to be administered at every segment of the evidence, but an advantage to be afforded to the accused at the final end after consideration of the entire evidence, if the Judge conscientiously and reasonably entertains doubt regarding the guilt of the accused"
24. The testimony of PWIO Ajay Rawat would indicate that the accusedherein was employed under some scheme. That goes to say that the case in hand would at the best be a matter of improper transfer rather than criminal. The benefit of doubt goes to the accused persons. Both the accused persons Parmod Kumar and Ved Ram are acquitted in the present case.
Accused Parmod Kumar is acquitted from the charges framed upon him on 1321995, u/s 467/468 IPC. Accused Parmod Kumar is also acquitted from the charges framed upon him on 1321995, u/s 120B, r/w Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC.
Accused Ved Ram is acquitted from the charges framed upon him CBI Vs. Parmod Kumar & Ved Ram, CC No:56/6/2011, RC No:11(S)/92 28 on 1321995, u/s 420/471 IPC. Accused Ved Ram is also acquitted from the charges framed upon him on 1321995, u/s 120B r/w Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC.
Their bail bonds & surety bonds are discharged. Compliance of Section 437(A) Cr.P.C. be made accordingly. File be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY ON 29052015 ( VEENA RANI ) Chief Metropolitan Magistrate South East District / Saket Courts New Delhi/29052015 CBI Vs. Parmod Kumar & Ved Ram, CC No:56/6/2011, RC No:11(S)/92