Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2.(c) P.W.5 also spoken about Exs.P3 to P9 and the letter for encahsing 7 KVPs, Ex.P.10, given by Rajendran and payments were made on Exs.P.3 to P.9. P.W.6 spoken about the stock register Ex.P.17 maintained at Natrampalli Sub-Post Office from 17.2.1989 to 6.6.1996. According to the Stock Register, Natrampalli Sub-Post Office issued KVP denomination of Rs.5000/- bearing Nos.00BB410545, 00BB410546 on 23.3.1990. Subsequently, only on 21.1.1993 entries containing that KVP Rs.5000/- denomination bearing No.14BB000200 and 14BB000201 were issued in between 23.3.1990 and 21.9.1993 as per Stock Register and no KVPs were issued to anybody. Stock Register Ex.P.17 also not containing the entries pertaining to Exs.P.3 to P.5. Ex.P.17 also do not contain the entries relating to Exs.P.3 to P.5. While he was working as Sub-Post Master at Natrampalli Exs.P.3 to P.9 were duly filled by Murugesan A.1. The specimen signatures given by P.W.6 is Ex.P.18 series. Post Office Account Book is Ex.P.19. P.W.19 deposed that if Exs.P.3 to 9 were issued from Natrampalli Post Office, this transaction would have been brought into account in Ex.P.19 for the date 17.9.1990.

2.(d) P.W.7 was working as Postal Assistant and also officiating as Sub-Post Master, Natrampalli Post Office during 1996-1998, received six money order forms along with list for payment to the villages address Kotthur and Mallagunda. Out of six money orders, three money order numbers found contrary to the list received from Tirupathur. He informed Thirupathur Post Master about the discrepancy and he informed P.W.7 over phone that a revised list will be sent after perusal of Deputy Post Master and the Money Order Clerk. Subsequently it was informed by the Divisional Superintendent of Post Office, Tirupathur that the said Money Orders were bogus. The statement of R. Ulaganathan, Kothur, Ex.P.20 was recorded at Natrampalli BDOs Office on 17.6.1997. It was written by Ulaganathan voluntarily.

2.(f) P.W.10 was working as E.D.D.A. at Modikuppam Branch Post Office. His job is to deliver the Registered Posts, letters and M.Os. Registered Post cover Ex.P.31 addressed to one Rajendran, R.Kollapalli Village was entrusted to him for delivery. When P.W.10 went the said village, he found no such person. According to P.W.11 Exs.P.3 to P.9 were filled up by A1. Ex.P.24 indent slip is that of A2 A.Thukkan's handwriting and signature. Ex.P.4 is the Attendance Register in which A1 put his initial for having attended office on 6.2.1996. P.W.12 was working as Sub-Post Master in Natrampalli Post Office during 1997-2000. According to him Exs.P.3 to P.9 were not issued from Natrampalli Post Office on 17.9.1990.

2. The person who wrote the blud enclosed writings stamped and marked S1 to S10, S10A, S11 to S16 and A1 to A3 also wrote the red enclosed writings similarly stamped and marked Q1, Q3, Q5, Q7, Q9, Q11, Q13, Q15, Q17, Q19, Q21, Q23, Q25, Q27, Q30, Q31, Q34 and Q35.

3. The person who wrote the blue enclosed writings stamped and marked s17 to s30 and A4 to A6 also wrote the red enclosed writings similary stamped and marked Q4, Q8, Q12, Q16, Q20, Q24, Q28 and Q29.

10. In para 4, P.W.15 opined that Admittedly genuine writings and signature of Shri Thukkan, Sub Post-Master written by him in routine course on some official documents are also needed for examination. Except stating so, he has not given any finding. His report is incomplete one. The evidence of investigating officer is also totally silent about the specimen signatures collected from A3 and when they were collected and sent to the forensic lab for comparison. The collection of specimen signatures of A3 in the absence of any evidence would show that merely A3's signature is with the expert. As he was not able to give any evidence with regard to A3 in signing any of the document, the report of the expert is also incomplete. Evidence of P.W.15 will not serve any purpose to the prosecution to prove the alleged charge. When these discrepancies were pointed out, the learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI cases conceded that there is no explanation for that from the prosecution side. Therefore taking into consideration of the evidence, which was adduced by the prosecution, it is very shaky in nature. Now, the prosecution cannot canvas the case against A3 for conviction.