Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. Case RC 5-S-2000-SCB/1 Delhi was registered on 27.12.2000 on a complaint referred by Ms. Meera Shankar (PW11) then Joint Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs vide its letters dated 16.11.2000 Ex. PW11/B and 12.12.2000 to the CBI in the wake of several forged anonymous / pseudonymous complaints/letters which were being addressed/received by the Ministry and other political personalities regarding irregularities in the functioning of B.P. Koirala, Institute of Health Services (BPKISH) Dharan, Nepal. PW11 Ms. Meera Shankar, J.S. MEA, informed to the CBI that there have been several instances of false complaints against B.P. Koirala Institute of Health Services, Dharan, Nepal and its personnel. Such pseudonymous complaints/anonymous letters were examined at different levels, but the allegation mentioned were found to be baseless. She further reported that the forged complaints have purportedly being either written or engineered by one Ravi Dutt Pathak, who was on deputation to BPKISH as Private Secretary to Chief Engineer with CPWD. She also reported about the possible involvement of Jagdish Chandra who was earlier (Accounts officer). The complaint also mentioned that such forged letters had a nuisance value and unless these are checked, they have potential of creating a situation which may adversely effect India's bilateral relationship with Nepal.

17.PW 13 is Jagdish Chander Sharma. He was also one of the suspects and was named in the FIR, however, he was not charge sheeted, rather he was cited as witness. He was posted on deputation at BPKISH. He did not depose much and stated that due to receipt of various anonymous complaints suspicion was raised upon him as well as the accused and no proof was available against him. He deposed that CBI conducted search of his house, however, nothing was found.

18. PW 3 is Jose Kurian and PW 9 is Ms. Saroj Punhani. These witnesses were the part of the team which had gone to Nepal to investigate into the anonymous complainant. PW 3 deposed that in 1996, MEA directed CPWD to investigate into various anonymous/ pseudonymous complaints regarding the project and the team comprising of, Sh. Vishnu Prakash, Ms. Punhani and himself visited Nepal and made detailed inquiry. After the inquiry, anonymous/ pseudonymous complaints were found baseless and a report to this effect was submitted to MEA duly signed by all the members. Witness was extensively cross-examined by the defence. Similarly, PW 9 Ms. Saroj Punhani who was then posted at Embassy of Nepal and was part of the team deposed in consonance with the testimony of PW 3. She was also cross-examined.

STATEMENT OF ACCUSED U/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C.

26.After completion of PE, statement of accused was recorded wherein all the incriminating evidence was put to the accused. Accused denied having made any of the anonymous/ pseudonyms complaints. He stated that he was repatriated at his own request as he was promoted to the rank of Principal Pvt. Secretary and had he not joined, he would have lost his promotion. He further denied that a team constituted by MEA consisting of PW3 and PW9 Ms. Punhani had visited Dharan Nepal to investigate anonymous complaints. He stated that the team has visited only to enquire in the matter of audit objection and not for investigating the anonymous/pseudonyms complaints. He further denied that he was custodian of the files. He stated that he was only posted for a short span of one year from 24.08.1995 to 26.08.1996 and the important files used to be brought by the officers directly to Chief Engineer. He further stated that the account file, service book and personal files of CMT and Indian Medical Faculty were under the custody of accounts officer who used to sit in a different barrack. He further stated that the file pertaining to civil work and electric work were under the custody of the respective EE (Civil Electrical) and the contract documents were kept under the lock of E.E. In-charge. He further stated that besides him there were other persons who were having access to the records such as Mr. K. Rajagopalan, Amrit Lal and one attendant Mr. Shankar. Vis-a-vis the FSL report Ex. PW11/A, accused claimed that PW6 had obtained the report in a private capacity which was not even conclusive. He further stated that no search and seizure was conducted and his signatures were taken forcibly. He further claimed that he was only being made a scapegoat and his entire career was ruined.

27. Accused did not lead the evidence in his defence.

28. Thereafter, final arguments were heard at length.

29. Ld. PP for CBI Sh. Darshan Singh who argued at length contended that all the witnesses of CBI have fully supported the case of the prosecution and the entire evidence led by the prosecution if taken into totality leads to an irrebutable conclusion that the letters i.e. complaints which were anonymous/pseudonymous (as mentioned in annexure -I of complaint Ex. PW11/B given by PW-11 to CBI) were written by the accused. Ld. PP has further contended that through the testimonies of PW2, PW6, PW7, PW12, the prosecution has proved that the accused has access to the project documents, stationary and all other documents. He further argued that accused was prematurely repatriated to his parent department and therefore he got agitated and started writing anonymous/pseudonymous complaints in the purported name of some senior persons. All such complaints were addressed to the persons in the authority i.e. Ministers and Bureaucrats. Accused intended to defame the project as well as to malign the officers who were attached with the project. Ld. PP contends that making the false complaints was done with the sole intention to cause damage or injury to the officials who were trying to make BPKISH a success. Ld. PP had argued that section 44 of IPC defines the word injury as any harm whatever illegally caused to any person, in body, in mind, reputation or property.