Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. Let me examine the testimony of the material witnesses and the other documents filed before me in light of law and the case law to decide whether charge is proved against accused Vijay Kumar Gupta.

C.C. NO. 70/12 State (CBI) Vs. Vijay Kumar Gupta Page no. 4 / 82

7. CBI in support of their case have examined 22 witnesses.

8. PW­1 Sh. G.K. Sahani stated that stated that since 2000 he had worked in Store Department of NPL. He stated that he know Vijay Kumar Gupta who was working as Stores and Purchase Assistant Grade­I. He stated that he can identify the signatures of accused since he had worked with him and has seen him writing and signing during the course of his official duties.

10. PW­3 Sh. J.D. Batra, Retired Section Officer, Stores and Purchase, National Physical Laboratory has stated that he had joined the said officer in May, 1974. He had retired from NPL in May, 2006. In NPL he had worked in purchase and stores departments. He stated that accused Vijay Kumar Gupta had worked as Stores and Purchase Assistant Grade­I. He stated that he was his colleague and he had worked with him. He stated that he can identify the signatures of accused since he had worked with him and had seen him writing and signing during the course of his official duties. He stated that he has been shown the bills of Kendriya Bhandar which bear the signatures of accused which he has done as a token of having received the stocks mentioned in the bills.

She further stated that Annexure­I and Annexure­IV i.e. Ex.PW5/A and Ex.PW5/B were not prepared by her and they do not bear her signatures also.

13. PW­6 Smt. Swantantra Sethi is working as Store Assistant, Grade­I, NPL. Pusa. She stated that she used to make entry in the stock ledger which was brought by way of purchasing from Kendriya Bhandar and other co­operative stores. She stated that the entries of the items as per the bill mentioned in Ex. PW5/A are not entered in the stock ledger. The entries mentioned in annexure IV Ex. PW5/B of the items against the bill are also not mentioned in the ledger except the entry at serial no. 21. She stated that the entries which are not mentioned in the stock ledger of the items mentioned in Ex. PW5/A and Ex. PW5/B are not made C.C. NO. 70/12 State (CBI) Vs. Vijay Kumar Gupta Page no. 13 / 82 because those items were not brought to the Central Store where she was working. She stated that the items once kept in the stores are issued to different NPL Officials and the entry to this effect is made in the same ledger.

He admitted that it took about a year in reconciling their record. Perhaps, they had given to CBI the tabulation given by accused Vijay Kumar Gupta in the office as well as the correspondence which they had with the Central Stores of NPL and Vijay Kumar Gupta, who was working under the Store Officer. He stated that he does not know if NPL had got the signatures of accused Vijay Kumar Gupta examined from GEQD, Shimla. He had not given any information in his complaint to CBI about the credit passbook as the same was not necessary. He stated that he always signs in Hindi. His Hindi signature must be with the Kendriya Bhandar for the purpose of comparison with purchase order. However, he volunteered that he is not sure if his specimen signatures are with Kendriya Bhandar or not. He stated that some of the purchase orders were not in the prescribed performa. Only the officials of Kendriya Bhandar could tell why they had not noticed that the purchase orders were not in the prescribed performa as they ought to have done so. He does not remember the name of the Store Officers during the relevant time as they were changed from time to time. He admitted that Mr. S.N. Gupta and Mr. P. D. Aggarwal were looking after the work of Stores as Store Officers. At the time of issuance of purchase order, the Stores and Purchase officer would authorize a person to collect the purchased articles from Kendriya Bhandar and the said fact would be mentioned on the purchase order itself. In the eventuality of non availability of the said authorised official on the date when articles were to be collected from Kendriya C.C. NO. 70/12 State (CBI) Vs. Vijay Kumar Gupta Page no. 42 / 82 Bhandar, the Store Officer had the authority to authorize somebody else to collect the same. All the genuine Purchase Orders would bear the authorization in favour of an official for collecting the articles from Kendriya Bhandar. He stated that he does not remember whether the statement prepared by accused referred to in para no. 3 in his examination in chief dated 03.8.2010 was shown to him during investigation by CBI officials or not. He stated that he has not seen any such statement during his evidence in Court. He had gone through the said statement prepared by accused Vijay Kumar Gupta in normal course of his duties when the same was prepared in response to letter dated 04.02.2004 received from Kendriya Bhandar regarding outstanding bills. The said statement was not complete as all the bills of the relevant period of Kendriya Bhandar were not mentioned in the said statement and even in the cases of those few bills, there were contradictions in the particulars furnished. He stated that as far as he remembers when the statement was submitted for first time by the accused, the same was returned with written comments to file the complete particulars. The letter received from Kendriya Bhandar dated 04.02.2004, the incomplete statement submitted by accused Vijay Kumar Gupta in reference to the said letter, further efforts to call for more documents from Kendriya Bhandar and the reconciliation etc. were all lying in one file, although those details were prepared on the basis of different types of record maintained in their office sometimes in the form of files.