Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

57. Now coming to the inconsistencies in his testimony. PW-4 Sh.

Dharamvir stated in his cross-examination that he does not know whether as per Clause 8 of Agreement No. 09/EE/WD- 12/DDA/2011-12 Mark PW4/DX between his firm and DDA, he was required to prepared and submit the bill. He voluntarily stated that he was not given the copy of the agreement nor he was asked to submit the bill. He stated that he is not aware as if as per the terms of agreement, the JE concerned was required to prepare the bill as per the entires in the Measurement Book, if he (witness) fails to submit the bill. He also voluntarily stated that as no letter or any communication has been received by him from anyone. He does not remember whether the work awarded to him was completed by him on 22.10.2011. He was shown to D-12 Ex.PW8/DA and after going through the same he states that it is mentioned on the file, but there is no award letter, therefore, he cannot say with certainty. He admitted that if the work is not completed by the Contractor in the stipulated time, the extension is to be sought from the Authority to complete the work. He also admitted that work awarded to him was to be completed within three months from the date of the award of work and he stated that he did CC No.: 65/12, RC No.:DAI/2012/A0008 CBI v Pritam Lal Garg Page No. 43 of 74 not complete the work as the Department did not hand over him the clear site for the work. He voluntarily stated that the work was delayed on account of fault with the department which is not given the clear site for which he had written the letters. The final bill cannot be made without completion of the work. He also admitted that he had given the application for extension of time in this case. He does not remember the exact date on which extension of time was granted to him, but the same was granted to him. He could not say whether the extension of time form (EOT Proforma) was issued to him on 18.2.2012. On being shown he admitted proforma for Extension of Time Ex. PW4/DX-2 and stated that the same was submitted by him and filled in his handwriting and voluntarily stated that the proforma bears the dated of 10.3.2012. In reply to question that document Ex. PW4/DX-2 was issued on 18.02.2012 by X'EN Sh. M.S. Hassan and endorsement to this effect is also at encircled portion at point Y and by saying the dated of 10.3.2012 you are trying to confuse the Court, he stated that the department issues such proforma in the back date and he was forced to write on the same that he will not claim any extra money for the delay from the department on the encircled portion Z. In reply to question that the extension of time was granted to you on 29.02.2012 as per page no. 105 of D-12 Ex. PW8/DA, he stated that department makes document in the back date and as per the CC No.: 65/12, RC No.:DAI/2012/A0008 CBI v Pritam Lal Garg Page No. 44 of 74 procedure, the dispatch number of the letter should be mentioned when it is issued from the Division Office for the Circle Office and after the Circle Office forwards the same it also mentions its own dispatch number and this document does not bear any dispatch number. He stated that this is the procedure of the department, but he does not know if there is some written instructions to this effect or not. He stated that he had dispute regarding the payment of bill with DDA before he had gone to CBI with his complaint. The award of tender was for Rs. 32,29,035/- and he stated that he does not remember the exact amount for which he raised the bill. However, he demanded more amount than the awarded tender amount. He could tell as to how much more the same was from the tender amount even by approximation i.e. 10 lakhs, 20, lakhs or 50 lakhs. He denied the suggestion that he was forcing the department to make his claim for bill for more than Rs. 80 lakhs and that the bill is raised on the basis of entries made by the JE in the Measurement Book.