Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(vii) The seventh claim 69/96 also pertained to Abha International and the corresponding policy was taken by Sanjay Raina on 4 th December 1996. The claim was filed on 13th December 1996 for Rs. 28,180. The consignor was L.A. Marketing Agency, a fictitious firm. The transporter was shown as M/s. Narang Road Carriers, also a fictitious firm. The surveyor was ZKC, which submitted the survey report dated 30th December 1996. The entire claim was lodged and a cheque for Rs. 28,180 was issued which was encashed by Sanjay Raina. The missing documents included the goods receipt, the letter of subrogation, the details of appointment of surveyor, the details of the recovery agent appointed, copy of the marine policy and the entry regarding the claim.

24. In the circumstances, it is not possible to accept the submission of learned counsel for the Appellants that on account of the misjoinder of charges, there was any failure of justice. In the considered view of the Court, the present case squarely falls within the ambit of Section 464(1) Cr PC and only on the ground of misjoinder of parties this Court is not persuaded to set aside the conviction of the Appellants.

Handing over of files by the Vigilance Department

25. The next contention advanced by the Appellants concern the seizure and preservation of files by the Vigilance Department of NIC and their subsequent entrustment to the CBI. It is stated that with there being a clear admission by PW8 that the seizure memo and the inquiry report prepared by the Vigilance Department not being in the judicial file at the time of trial, the burden was on the NIC to show what had happened to the documents found missing in the files seized. According to learned counsel for the Appellants, unless the seizure memo prepared by the Vigilance Department of NIC was made available, it would not be possible to know what papers existed when such seizure took place and if the files were not preserved in a tamper proof environment, then the Appellants would have the benefit of Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and would be able to contend that an adverse inference ought to be drawn that the documents were kept back by the Prosecution would have, in fact, enured to the benefit of the accused.

26. The evidence of PW8 is relevant in regard to the above submission. He was part of the Vigilance Department which conducted the surprise check. He states that "I have prepared the seizure memo. I seized the files from National Insurance Company Limited, Kapashera Branch. I had seized the files from the Branch Manager but the seizure memos are not on record." He further states "these files which were seized by me remained in the custody of the Vigilance Department. There is no procedure in the Vigilance Department to prepare the handing over memo." He clarifies that the files "remained in the custody of the Vigilance Department." He adds that he had prepared the inquiry report which he submitted to Mr. A.K. Seth but that "my report is not on the judicial file." He states that I had not given the details of the missing documents in the seized files to the officials of NIC, Kapashera."