Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

23. PW13 - Shri P.K. Chatterji, is one of most important witnesses produced by the prosecution in view of the fact that he was also working as an LDC in the stationery stores of MEA. He deposed that his duties were to procure local stationery items upto limit of Rs.500/- through P. Guruswami, who was working as an LDC in the stationery division during the year, 1977-78, used to receive the stationery from stationary depot and prepare the indents. The duties of accused Tejinder Singh, who was another LDC in the Stationery Section, were to procure and issue stationery and to maintain the stock register. He deposed that he was in a position to identify the handwriting of accused Tejinder Singh. Accordingly, he identify the handwriting of accused Tajinder Singh on various indents i.e. Ex.PW13/A to Ex.PW13/P. During cross-examination the witness admitted that he had no Technical Qualification in handwriting identification. He stated that Rajinder Singh Parihar, R.C. Pandey, Tiwari and Mishra, were working as Casual Labourer in the stationery store. He however, showed his ignorance if these persons could issue the stationery. The witness gave the set-up of stationery store. He deposed that there was a Joint Secretary, who was the head of division. There were a Dy. Secretary and a Director under the Joint Secretary. Administrative Officers, Under Secretaries, Section Officers, Assistants, UDCs and LDCs were also posted in the store. He also stated that accused used to get the stationery from stationery depot, maintain the stock and issue the stationery. The stationery depot was situated at Netaji Nagar. The accused had to go to the Depot to get the stationery. The key of the store remained with the accused and whenever, the stationery was to (CBI v. Tejinder Singh ) be issued, he used to open the store and sit there. He stated that he worked in the store in the absence of the accused as and when instructed by his Officer. When he worked in the stores, in the absence of the accused, the keys of the stores remained with him. He went on to add that they used to modify the indents and struck off the items or reduce the quantity. He stated that if any requisition was received on telephone, they used to add it in the indent and would then get a slip from the concerned officer about the additional requisition. He testified that the additions were made with the consent of the Officer Incharge of the Store. He stated that the Section Officer was the Officer Incharge of the Store. He stated that there was no Security Staff in the Store. The Security Staff was on the Gate of the MEA Office. Nothing could be taken out without a gate pass by anybody. The accused was never caught, while trying to take out anything from the Office. The witness also admitted that if any request was made verbally by the person who had come to collect the stationery, such items were added in the indent on his verbal request. This addition was made by the person issuing the stationery. The stationery was issued after the words, "please issue" were written on the indent as a matter of routine. This witness was not declared hostile nor the witness was cross-examined on the point that additins in the indents could be made either on telephonic requests by the Section concerned or on the oral request of the person who had come to collect the stationery.

30. PW1 Shri Rajinder Singh Parihar was working as a Casual Labour in the stationery store. He deposed that during the period 1977 to 1980, he was working as a casual labour in SE-I Section of MEA. His job was to maintain the stationery store; to remove dust from the items; and to help other staff members namely Mr. R.K. Sharma, LDC, Mr. P.K. Chatterjee, LDC, Mr. P. Guruswami, LDC, Mr. Kishan Sarup, Assistant, Mr. S.C. Pathak, Section Officer and Mr. Tejinder Singh, LDC. He stated that the job of the accused was to issue the stationery as per the indents. He stated that S/Shri R.K. Sharma, P.K. Chatterjee, P. Guruswami, and accused Tejinder Singh used to receive and enter the stationery in the stock register. The (CBI v. Tejinder Singh ) witness was allowed to be cross-examined by the Learned Sr. PP. However, his cross-examination was not completed and this witness was not produced for cross-examination by the defence Counsel.

34. PW-23, Inspector Sushil Kumar, is the Investigating Officer. He deposed about the part played during investigation of this case. He admitted during cross-examination that the Audit Party from the Directorate of Audit, Central Revenue had conducted the Audit for the period 1977 to 1980 and found pilferage and embezzlement of the stationery to the extent of Rs.20 Lakhs. He admitted that in the complaint, it was mentioned that Shri B.N. Sharma, Section Officer and Shri Tejinder Singh, LDC were working in the Store. He had taken into possession a copy of the Audit Report alongwith the complaint. He admitted that he did not file the said report with the charge sheet. He deposed that during investigation, he did not find any evidence against B.N. Sharma, Section Officer and therefore, he did not arrest him. He went on to add that the Audit report had detailed 2061 instances of forgery of indents. He had taken up investigation with respect to 560 cases. Out of this, complete investigation could be done only in respect of 46 instances (in respect of which three charge sheets have been filed). He also admitted that as against the allegations of embezzlement of Rs.20 Lakhs of stationery stores, he could gather evidence with respect to Rs.26,533.20 Paise only. He showed his ignorance if the key of the store was deposited in the Central Registry and the store was opened by the Frash in the morning and locked in the evening by him. He admitted that in some instances, stationery was issued by the Daftri and casual labourers. He, however, denied the suggestion that he had picked up only those instances (CBI v. Tejinder Singh ) wherein the stationery had been [ordered to be] issued by the accused and had let the others off. He admitted that stock register (receipt register) and issue register, maintained by accused Tejinder Singh were found to be containing entries as per modified indents. He admitted that as per procedure, nothing could go out or come in the building without the gate pass. He admitted that he had seized the gate passes, which could be found, related to the instances in these case. He denied the suggestion that he had not made investigation with regard to the gate passes relating to the cases referred to in the instant charge sheet. He admitted that there were no allegations against the accused of having taken out any stationery item without the gate pass.

43. As pointed out by me earlier, while discussing the evidence produced by the prosecution, a number of prosecution witnesses have categorically stated that if any request for additional items is made verbally by the person who has come to collect stationery or on telephone, such items were added in the indent. For instance in charge sheet No.1, a reference may be made to the statement of PW-8 Shri Swaran Singh who is the author of indent Ex.PW8/A. He has categorically stated during his cross-examination that sometimes, Daftri used to add in the indent even after he had signed the indent when demand of particular item was considered necessary subsequently. PW13, Shri P.K. Chatterjee was working as an LDC in the stationery stores itself alongwith the accused. He used to issue the stores when the accused used to be on leave and was, therefore, very much aware of the procedure. He stated during his cross- examination that if any requisition was received on telephone (by them), they used to add it in the indent and would get a slip from the concerned officer about the additional requisition. He added that the additions were made with the consent of the Officer Incharge of their Store. PW-18, Shri Daljit Singh stated during his cross-examination that office copy of the indent was not sent to the stationery section/store. Anyone could make changes in the indent after he (CBI v. Tejinder Singh ) had signed the same. The stationery obtained by the Peon was not checked by him. It was checked by the stationery Incharge in the section. Similarly, PW19, Murli Manohar Issar who was working as P.A. to the Under Secretary, Supply Wing, MEA, and used to indent stationery, stated during his cross-examination that if any item was required and was not mentioned in the indent, they used to telephone the stationery store and the item could be added in the indent. PW-20 Shri Gajraj Singh Yadav is another witness who supports the defence version. He was working as UDC in MEA and had issued indent Ex.PW13/T containing addition Q.331. He stated during his cross-examination that if there was any urgent requirement, the Section would telephone the stationery store and the item was issued after making entries in the previous indent. The learned defence Counsel has referred to the statement of PW24 Shri S.R. Iyengar, who was working as a Section Officer in the Issue (S) Section of MEA at the relevant time, and was examined to prove indent Ex.PW24/A. He stated during his cross- examination that it was normal practice to make additions, alterations and modifications in the stationery indent by the stationery stores. The learned Defence Counsel also referred to the statement of PW28 Shri Gurdial Singh Khera, who also stated that in case of emergency, items could be got added in the indent signed by him.