kisan vikas patra scam cbi court delhi judgement
Post on 18-Apr-2015
56 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
IN THE COURT OF SH. VINOD KUMARSPLECIAL JUDGEII (P. C. ACT, CBI), ROHINI, DELHI
CC No. 19/2009(Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office, Delhi)CBI Vs (1) Krishan Madhwa Singh
S/o Sh. Jai Nath SinghR/o J130, Sector09, Vijay Nagar, Ghaziabad.
(2) Sohan Pal Sharma @ PanditjiS/o Sh. Deep ChandR/o D74, Ganga Vihar, Delhi94.
(3) Laxman Prasad @ ThakurS/o Late Sh. Kalpnath PrasadR/o C120, Street No.5, Ganga Vihar, Delhi94.
(4) Rohtash Kanwar (Already convicted)S/o Sh. Chander BhanR/o RZ68, Indira Park, Uttam Nagar,New Delhi110059.
(5) Harish Chander (Discharged)S/o Sh. Attar SinghR/o B, Daksha Road, Biswas Nagar Shahdara,Delhi110032 and C28, East Uttam Nagar,New Delhi59.
(6) Hari Narayan Pal @ NetaS/o Sh. Hari DuttR/o R1/14, Nawada Hosing Complex,Uttam Nagar, New Delhi110059.
(7) Satish Pal SinghS/o Sh. Kehar SinghR/o C33, LIG Flats, East of Loni Road,Shahdara, Delhi
(8) Alwar Singh (Expired)
CC No. 19/2009 Page 1 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
S/o Sh. Ralhan SinghR/o RZ15A/1, Main Sagarpur, Delhi110046.
Date of conclusion of final arguments : 13.8.2012Date of judgement : 17.8.2012
JUDGEMENT
1. Prosecution story as unfolded during the trial is that
genuine Kisan Vikas Patras were despatched from Nasik Security
Press, Nasik to different consignees in India by Railways.
During transit the said KVPs were stolen at various places
including Patna Jn. Railway Yard by breaking open the wagon
in the Railway Yard of Patna Railway Station. The open
delivery of the consignment was received by Officers of Circle
Stamp Depot Patna who reported the matter to the Police. The
theft of KVPs was circulated through out India through different
missing/lost circulars. One Naresh Praasad @ Sadhu was
arrested by CBI in CBI case RC45(E)/98 BS&FC New Delhi and
at present he is in judicial custody. In this regard a case has
been registered at Patna vide FIR No. 29/99dated 24.2.1998
under Section 468/409 and 120B IPC in GRP Patna and at
Howrah vide FIR No. 105 dated 2.5.1998 under Section
379/411 IPC at Howrah GRP. These stolen KVPs were sold by
said Naresh Prasad @ Sadhu, Ramesh Kumar Ramania and
CC No. 19/2009 Page 2 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
Mohd. Anwar to various persons. Accused K. M. Singh (A1) and
H. N. Pal @ Neta (A6) in pursurance of said criminal conspiracy
procured the stolen KVPs from Afzal Siddiqui and Sehzada
Siddiqui from Lucknow. Accused Afzal Siddiqui is an accused in
CBI case RC S19 2000 E 0001 and is facing trial in the Court of
Special Judge, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi.
2. Investigation has further revealed that accused K. M.
Singh (A1) in conspiracy with coaccused Laxman Prasad @
Thakur (A3), Sohan Pal Sharma @ Panditji (A2), Hari Narayan
Pal @ Neta (A6), Harish Chander (A5), Satish Pal Singh (A7)
and Alwar Singh (A8) forged the stolen Kisan Vikas Patras and
got them encashed from Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office.
Accused K. M. Singh (A1), Hari Narayan Pal @ Neta (A6),
Sohan Pal Sharma @ Panditji (A2) and Harish Chander (A5)
obtained through fraudulent means identity slip booklets from
Lodi Road Head Post Office, New Delhi110003. The
stolen/forged KVPs were purported to have been issued from
Char Bagh Lucknow, Jind Head Post Office, Rajaji Puram
Lucknow Post Office, Machhrauli Post office, Karnal Head Post
Office, Rajkishore Rajkot Post office360001, Hata Post Office &
Batwadi Akola PO 4443021, and presented at Hari Nagar
Ashram Post Office for encashment. Investigation has revealed
CC No. 19/2009 Page 3 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
that accused K. M. Singh (A1) and accused Hari Narayan Pal @
Neta (A6) used to procure these stolen KVPs from their source
Afzal Siddiqui and Sehzada Siddiqui based in Lucknow.
3. Investigation has revealed that accused K. M. Singh (A1)
and accused Satish Pal Singh (A7) had together worked at
Jangpura Post Office and were known to each other. When
accused Satish Pal Singh (A7) was transferred to Hari Nagar
Ashram Post Office, accused K. M. Singh (A1), coaccused H. N.
Pal @ Neta (A6) and accused Sohan Pal Sharma @ Panditji
(A2) met him and hatched a conspiracy to encash the
stolen/forged KVPs by forging the verification reports on NC32
Forms of the issuing Post Offices. Accused Satish Pal Singh
(A7) was asked to intercept the NC32 Forms and hand them
over to K. M. Singh (A1) or other coaccused persons who after
forging the verification reports would again hand them over to
accused Satish Pal Singh (A7).
4. Investigation has revealed that accused Sohan Pal Sharma
@ Panditji (A2) in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy forged
the body writing of KVPs bearing Nos. 45CC163601 to
45CC163321 to 45CC163400, 31BB007761 to 31BB007800,
28CC970338 to 28CC970348 and 28CC982031 to 982040
total 277 KVPs in the fictitious name of Hari Prasad. These
CC No. 19/2009 Page 4 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
KVPs were encashed by accused Laxman Prasad @ Thakur (A3)
(who was the servant of accused Sohan Pal Sharma) from Hari
Nagar Ashram, Post Office, New Delhi110014 during the period
between 27.3.1998 to 12.6.1999.
5. Investigatgion has revealed that the accused Sohan Pal
Sharma @ Panditji (A2) in furtherance of the conspiracy forged
the above referred stolen KVPs and facilitated the encashment of
KVPs to the tune of Rs.46,36,100/ thereby caused wrongful
gain to himself and other accused persons and wrongful loss to
the Government of India.
6. Investigation has further revealed that in furtherance to
the said criminal conspiracy accused K. M. Singh (A1) directed
accused Satish Pal singh (A7) that accused Rohtash (A4) would
reach Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office for encashment of the
KVPs. Accused Satish Pal Singh (A7) informed him tht Post
Master Alwar Singh (A8) was going for training to Saharanpur
and therefore he should send Rohtash on the same day.
Accordingly, as per the direction of accused K. M. singh (A1),
accused Rohtash Kanwar (A4)went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post
Office and presented the stolen/forged KVPs to the tune of Rs.8
Lacs for encashment. Accused Alwar Singh (A8) on seeing the
KVPs asked accused Satish Pal Singh (A7) to send NC 32 Forms
CC No. 19/2009 Page 5 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
to the issuing Post Office and verify the paritculars and himself
went on training to Saharanpur (UP). Accused Satish Pal Singh
(A7) in furtherance of criminal conspiracy signed on eight NC
32 Forms and also put the stamp of Hari Nagar Ashram Post
Office and gave them to accused K. M. Singh (A1) for getting
the verification forged. These eight NC32 Forms were
recovered from the car of accused K. M. Singh (A1) on his
pointing out.
7. Investigation has revealed that accused Sohan Pal Sharma
(A2) was in possession of three blank NC32 Forms seized
during the search of his house. Investigation has further
revealed that accused Sohan Pal Sharma @ Panditji (A2) had
met accused Harish Chander (A%) at Gole Dakkhana where
accused Harish Chander (A5) ws working as a Mail Man.
Accused Harish Chander (A5) asked accused Sohan Pal Sharma
@ Panditji (A2) to forge the body writing of the KVPs so that
they could be encashed.
8. Investigation has revealed that accused K. M. Singh (A1)
and accused H. N. Pal @ Neta (A6) got prepared round
seals/stamp which were used to forge the KVPs to show them to
have been issued from the concerned Post Office.
9. Investigation has further revealed that Laxman Prasad @
CC No. 19/2009 Page 6 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
Thakur (A3) personating himself as Hari Prasad went to Hari
Nagar Ashram Post Office on 23/6/1998 and presented KVPs
bearing serial no. 31BB007761 to 31BB007770 purported to
have been issued from Rajaji Puram Post Office Lucknow vide
Regn. No. 741 dated 24.2.94 to Postmaster Alwar Singh (A8)
who made payment of Rs.81,000/ to him against these KVPs.
These KVPs were presented along with identity slip bearing no.
18/43892.
10. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Laxman Prasad
@ Thakur (A3) personating himself as Hari Prasad again went
to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 13.6.98 and presented
KVPs bearing serial no. 31BB007771 to 31BB007780
purported to have been issued from Rajaji Puram Lucknow Post
Office vide Regn. No. 742 dated 24.2.94 to postmaster Alwar
Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.81,000/ to him against
these KVPs. These KVPs were presented along with identity slip
bearing no. 19/43892.
11. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Laxman Prasad
@ Thakur (A3) personating himself as Hari Prasad again went
to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 13.6.98 and presented
KVPs bearing serial no. 31BB007781 to 31BB007790
purported to have been issued from Rajaji Puram Lucknow Post
CC No. 19/2009 Page 7 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
Office vide Regn. No. 743 dated 24.2.94 to postmaster Alwar
Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.81,000/ to him against
these KVPs. These KVPs were presented along with identity slip
bearing no. 20/43892.
12. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Laxman Prasad
@ Thakur (A3) personating himself as Hari Prasad again went
to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 13.6.98 and presented
KVPs bearing serial no. 31BB007791 to 31BB007800
purported to have been issued from Rajaji Puram Lucknow Post
Office vide Regn. No. 744 dated 24.2.94 to postmaster Alwar
Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.81,000/ to him against
these KVPs. These KVPs were presented along with identity slip
bearing no. 21/43892.
13. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Laxman Prasad
@ Thakur (A3) personating himself as Hari Prasad again went
to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 14.8.98 and presented
KVPs bearing serial no. 28CC970301 to 28CC970310
purported to have been issued from Rajaji Puram Lucknow Post
Office vide Regn. No. 746 dated 24.2.94 to postmaster Alwar
Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.1,62,000/ to him against
these KVPs. These KVPs were presented along with identity slip
bearing no. 22/43892.
CC No. 19/2009 Page 8 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
14. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Laxman Prasad
@ Thakur (A3) personating himself as Hari Prasad again went
to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 14.8.98 and presented
KVPs bearing serial no. 28CC970311 to 28CC970320
purported to have been issued from Rajaji Puram Lucknow Post
Office vide Regn. No. 747 dated 24.2.94 to postmaster Alwar
Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.1,62,000/ to him against
these KVPs. These KVPs were presented along with identity slip
bearing no. 23/43892.
15. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Laxman Prasad
@ Thakur (A3) personating himself as Hari Prasad again went
to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 11.9.98 and presented
KVPs bearing serial no. 28CC970321 to 28CC970325
purported to have been issued from Rajaji Puram Lucknow Post
Office vide Regn. No. 748 dated 24.2.94 to postmaster Alwar
Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.86,500/ to him against
these KVPs.
16. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Laxman Prasad
@ Thakur (A3) personating himself as Hari Prasad again went
to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 11.9.98 and presented
KVPs bearing serial no. 28CC970326 to 28CC970330
purported to have been issued from Rajaji Puram Lucknow Post
CC No. 19/2009 Page 9 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
Office vide Regn. No. 749 dated 24.2.94 to postmaster Alwar
Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.86,500/ to him against
these KVPs.
17. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Laxman Prasad
@ Thakur (A3) personating himself as Hari Prasad again went
to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 11.9.98 and presented
KVPs bearing serial no. 28CC970331 to 28CC970336
purported to have been issued from Rajaji Puram Lucknow Post
Office vide Regn. No. 750 dated 24.2.94 to postmaster Alwar
Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.1,30,800/ to him against
these KVPs.
18. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Laxman Prasad
@ Thakur (A3) personating himself as Hari Prasad again went
to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 11.9.98 and presented
KVPs bearing serial no. 28CC970338 to 28CC970342
purported to have been issued from Rajaji Puram Lucknow Post
Office vide Regn. No. 752 dated 24.2.94 to postmaster Alwar
Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.86,500/ to him against
these KVPs.
19. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Laxman Prasad
@ Thakur (A3) personating himself as Hari Prasad again went
to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 11.9.98 and presented
CC No. 19/2009 Page 10 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
KVPs bearing serial no. 28CC970343 to 28CC970348
purported to have been issued from Rajaji Puram Lucknow Post
Office vide Regn. No. 753 dated 24.2.94 to postmaster Alwar
Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.1,03,800/ to him against
these KVPs.
20. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Laxman Prasad
@ Thakur (A3) personating himself as Hari Prasad again went
to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 21.12.98 and presented
KVPs bearing serial no. 28CC982031 to 28CC982035
purported to have been issued from Rajaji Puram Lucknow Post
Office vide Regn. No. 755 dated 24.2.94 to postmaster Alwar
Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.86,500/ to him against
these KVPs.
21. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Laxman Prasad
@ Thakur (A3) personating himself as Hari Prasad again went
to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 21.12.98 and presented
KVPs bearing serial no. 28CC982036 to 28CC982040
purported to have been issued from Rajaji Puram Lucknow Post
Office vide Regn. No. 756 dated 24.2.94 to postmaster Alwar
Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.86,500/ to him against
these KVPs.
22. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Laxman Prasad
CC No. 19/2009 Page 11 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
@ Thakur (A3) personating himself as Hari Prasad again went
to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 16.2.99 and presented
KVPs bearing serial no. 35BB936601 to 35BB936620
purported to have been issued from Jind Head Post Office vide
Regn. No. 565 dated 16.2.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh (A8)
who made payment of Rs.1,86,000/ to him against these KVPs.
23. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Laxman Prasad
@ Thakur (A3) personating himself as Hari Prasad again went
to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 16.2.99 and presented
KVPs bearing serial no. 35BB936621 to 35BB936640
purported to have been issued from Jind Head Post Office vide
Regn. No. 566 dated 16.2.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh (A8)
who made payment of Rs.1,86,000/ to him against these KVPs.
24. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Laxman Prasad
@ Thakur (A3) personating himself as Hari Prasad again went
to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 17.2.99 and presented
KVPs bearing serial no. 35BB936641 to 35BB936660
purported to have been issued from Jind Head Post Office vide
Regn. No. 567 dated 16.2.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh (A8)
who made payment of Rs.1,86,000/ to him against these KVPs.
25. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Laxman Prasad
@ Thakur (A3) personating himself as Hari Prasad again went
CC No. 19/2009 Page 12 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 19.2.99 and presented
KVPs bearing serial no. 35BB936661 to 35BB936680
purported to have been issued from Jind Head Post Office vide
Regn. No. 568 dated 16.2.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh (A8)
who made payment of Rs.1,86,000/ to him against these KVPs.
26. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Laxman Prasad
@ Thakur (A3) personating himself as Hari Prasad again went
to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 19.2.99 and presented
KVPs bearing serial no. 35BB936681 to 35BB936700
purported to have been issued from Jind Head Post Office vide
Regn. No. 569 dated 16.2.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh (A8)
who made payment of Rs.1,86,000/ to him against these KVPs.
27. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Laxman Prasad
@ Thakur (A3) personating himself as Hari Prasad again went
to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 3.3.99 and presented KVPs
bearing serial no. 35BB936301 to 35BB936320 purported to
have been issued from Jind Head Post Office vide Regn. No. 528
dated 6.2.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh (A8) who made
payment of Rs.1,86,000/ to him against these KVPs.
28. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Laxman Prasad
@ Thakur (A3) personating himself as Hari Prasad again went
to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 3.3.99 and presented KVPs
CC No. 19/2009 Page 13 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
bearing serial no. 35BB936321 to 35BB936340 purported to
have been issued from Jind Head Post Office vide Regn. No. 529
dated 6.2.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh (A8) who made
payment of Rs.1,86,000/ to him against these KVPs.
29. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Laxman Prasad
@ Thakur (A3) personating himself as Hari Prasad again went
to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 34.3.99 and presented
KVPs bearing serial no. 35BB936341 to 35BB936360
purported to have been issued from Jind Head Post Office vide
Regn. No. 530 dated 6.2.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh (A8)
who made payment of Rs.1,86,000/ to him against these KVPs.
30. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Laxman Prasad
@ Thakur (A3) personating himself as Hari Prasad again went
to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 4.3.99 and presented KVPs
bearing serial no. 35BB936361 to 35BB936380 purported to
have been issued from Jind Head Post Office vide Regn. No. 531
dated 6.2.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh (A8) who made
payment of Rs.1,86,000/ to him against these KVPs.
31. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Laxman Prasad
@ Thakur (A3) personating himself as Hari Prasad again went
to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 4.3.99 and presented KVPs
bearing serial no. 35BB936381 to 35BB936400 purported to
CC No. 19/2009 Page 14 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
have been issued from Jind Head Post Office vide Regn. No. 532
dated 6.2.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh (A8) who made
payment of Rs.1,86,000/ to him against these KVPs.
32. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Laxman Prasad
@ Thakur (A3) personating himself as Hari Prasad again went
to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 27.3.99 and presented
KVPs bearing serial no. 45CC163321 to 45CC163330
purported to have been issued from Charbagh Lucknow (UP)
Post Office vide Regn. No. 1381 dated 8.3.94 to postmaster
Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.1,86,000/ to him
against these KVPs.
33. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Laxman Prasad
@ Thakur (A3) personating himself as Hari Prasad again went
to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 27.3.99 and presented
KVPs bearing serial no. 45CC163331 to 45CC163340
purported to have been issued from Charbagh Lucknow (UP)
Post Office vide Regn. No. 1382 dated 8.3.94 to postmaster
Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.1,86,000/ to him
against these KVPs.
34. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Laxman Prasad
@ Thakur (A3) personating himself as Hari Prasad again went
to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 27.3.99 and presented
CC No. 19/2009 Page 15 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
KVPs bearing serial no. 45CC163341 to 45CC163350
purported to have been issued from Charbagh Lucknow (UP)
Post Office vide Regn. No. 1383 dated 8.3.94 to postmaster
Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.1,86,000/ to him
against these KVPs.
35. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Laxman Prasad
@ Thakur (A3) personating himself as Hari Prasad again went
to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 2730.3.99 and presented
KVPs bearing serial no. 45CC163351 to 45CC163360
purported to have been issued from Charbagh Lucknow (UP)
Post Office vide Regn. No. 1384 dated 8.3.94 to postmaster
Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.1,86,000/ to him
against these KVPs.
36. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Laxman Prasad
@ Thakur (A3) personating himself as Hari Prasad again went
to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 30.3.99 and presented
KVPs bearing serial no. 45CC163361 to 45CC163370
purported to have been issued from Charbagh Lucknow (UP)
Post Office vide Regn. No. 1385 dated 8.3.94 to postmaster
Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.1,86,000/ to him
against these KVPs.
37. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Laxman Prasad
CC No. 19/2009 Page 16 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
@ Thakur (A3) personating himself as Hari Prasad again went
to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 30.3.99 and presented
KVPs bearing serial no. 45CC163371 to 45CC163380
purported to have been issued from Charbagh Lucknow (UP)
Post Office vide Regn. No. 1386 dated 8.3.94 to postmaster
Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.1,86,000/ to him
against these KVPs.
38. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Laxman Prasad
@ Thakur (A3) personating himself as Hari Prasad again went
to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 30.3.99 and presented
KVPs bearing serial no. 45CC163381 to 45CC163390
purported to have been issued from Charbagh Lucknow (UP)
Post Office vide Regn. No. 1387 dated 8.3.94 to postmaster
Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.1,86,000/ to him
against these KVPs.
39. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Laxman Prasad
@ Thakur (A3) personating himself as Hari Prasad again went
to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 31.3.99 and presented
KVPs bearing serial no. 45CC163391 to 45CC163400
purported to have been issued from Charbagh Lucknow (UP)
Post Office vide Regn. No. 1388 dated 8.3.94 to postmaster
Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.1,86,000/ to him
CC No. 19/2009 Page 17 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
against these KVPs.
40. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Laxman Prasad
@ Thakur (A3) personating himself as Hari Prasad again went
to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 29.4.99 and presented
KVPs bearing serial no. 45CC163601 to 45CC163610
purported to have been issued from Charbagh Lucknow (UP)
Post Office vide Regn. No. 1394 dated 28.3.94 to postmaster
Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.1,86,000/ to him
against these KVPs.
41. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Laxman Prasad
@ Thakur (A3) personating himself as Hari Prasad again went
to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 29.4.99 and presented
KVPs bearing serial no. 45CC163611 to 45CC163620
purported to have been issued from Charbagh Lucknow (UP)
Post Office vide Regn. No. 1395 dated 28.3.94 to postmaster
Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.1,86,000/ to him
against these KVPs.
42. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Laxman Prasad
@ Thakur (A3) personating himself as Hari Prasad again went
to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 1.5.99 and presented KVPs
bearing serial no. 45CC163621 to 45CC163630 purported to
have been issued from Charbagh Lucknow (UP) Post Office vide
CC No. 19/2009 Page 18 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
Regn. No. 1396 dated 28.3.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh (A8)
who made payment of Rs.1,86,000/ to him against these KVPs.
43. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Laxman Prasad
@ Thakur (A3) personating himself as Hari Prasad again went
to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 1.5.99 and presented KVPs
bearing serial no. 45CC163631 to 45CC163640 purported to
have been issued from Charbagh Lucknow (UP) Post Office vide
Regn. No. 1397 dated 28.3.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh (A8)
who made payment of Rs.1,86,000/ to him against these KVPs.
44. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Laxman Prasad
@ Thakur (A3) personating himself as Hari Prasad again went
to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 1.5.99 and presented KVPs
bearing serial no. 45CC163641 to 45CC163650 purported to
have been issued from Charbagh Lucknow (UP) Post Office vide
Regn. No. 1398 dated 28.3.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh (A8)
who made payment of Rs.1,86,000/ to him against these KVPs.
45. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Laxman Prasad
@ Thakur (A3) personating himself as Hari Prasad again went
to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 8.5.99 and presented KVPs
bearing serial no. 45CC163651 to 45CC163660 purported to
have been issued from Charbagh Lucknow (UP) Post Office vide
Regn. No. 1399 dated 28.3.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh (A8)
CC No. 19/2009 Page 19 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
who made payment of Rs.1,86,000/ to him against these KVPs.
46. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Laxman Prasad
@ Thakur (A3) personating himself as Hari Prasad again went
to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 8.5.99 and presented KVPs
bearing serial no. 45CC163661 to 45CC163670 purported to
have been issued from Charbagh Lucknow (UP) Post Office vide
Regn. No. 1400 dated 28.3.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh (A8)
who made payment of Rs.1,86,000/ to him against these KVPs.
47. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Laxman Prasad
@ Thakur (A3) personating himself as Hari Prasad again went
to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 8.5.99 and presented KVPs
bearing serial no. 45CC163671 to 45CC163674 purported to
have been issued from Charbagh Lucknow (UP) Post Office vide
Regn. No. 1401 dated 28.3.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh (A8)
who made payment of Rs.74,400/ to him against these KVPs.
48. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Laxman Prasad
@ Thakur (A3) personating himself as Hari Prasad again went
to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 12.6.99 and presented
KVPs bearing serial no. 45CC163675 to 45CC163680
purported to have been issued from Charbagh Lucknow (UP)
Post Office vide Regn. No. 1402 dated 8.3.94 to postmaster
Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.1,11,600/ to him
CC No. 19/2009 Page 20 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
against these KVPs.
49. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Laxman Prasad
@ Thakur (A3) personating himself as Hari Prasad again went
to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 12.6.99 and presented
KVPs bearing serial no. 45CC163681 to 45CC163690
purported to have been issued from Charbagh Lucknow (UP)
Post Office vide Regn. No. 1403 dated 8.3.94 to postmaster
Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.1,86,000/ to him
against these KVPs.
50. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Laxman Prasad
@ Thakur (A3) personating himself as Hari Prasad again went
to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 12.6.99 and presented
KVPs bearing serial no. 45CC163691 to 45CC163700
purported to have been issued from Charbagh Lucknow (UP)
Post Office vide Regn. No. 1404 dated 8.3.94 to postmaster
Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.1,86,000/ to him
against these KVPs.
51. Investigation has thus revealed that accused Laxman
Prasad @ Thakur (A3) has personated himself as Hari Prasad
and presented before accused Alwar Singh (A8) Postmaster Hari
Nagar Ashram Post Office 477 above referred stolen/forged
KVPs of the face value of Rs.35,70,000/ and cheated the
CC No. 19/2009 Page 21 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
Government of India by fraudulent means to the tune of Rs.
64,96,100/.
52. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Sohan Pal
Sharma @ Panditji (A2) personating himself as Harpal Singh
went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 29.7.98 and
presented KVPs bearing serial no. 28CC982151 to
28CC982155 purported to have been issued from Machharuli
Post Office vide Regn. No. 516 dated 4.1.94 to postmaster
Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.86,500/ to him
against these KVPs. These KVPs were presented along with
Identity Slip Nos. 15/43893.
53. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Sohan Pal
Sharma @ Panditji (A2) personating himself as Harpal Singh
went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 29.7.98 and
presented KVPs bearing serial no. 28CC982156 to
28CC982160 purported to have been issued from Machharuli
Post Office vide Regn. No. 517 dated 4.1.94 to postmaster
Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.86,500/ to him
against these KVPs. These KVPs were presented along with
Identity Slip Nos. 16/43893.
54. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Sohan Pal
Sharma @ Panditji (A2) personating himself as Harpal Singh
CC No. 19/2009 Page 22 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 29.7.98 and
presented KVPs bearing serial no. 28CC982161 to
28CC982165 purported to have been issued from Machharuli
Post Office vide Regn. No. 518 dated 4.1.94 to postmaster
Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.86,500/ to him
against these KVPs. These KVPs were presented along with
Identity Slip Nos. 17/43893.
55. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Sohan Pal
Sharma @ Panditji (A2) personating himself as Harpal Singh
went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 29.7.98 and
presented KVPs bearing serial no. 28CC982166 to
28CC982170 purported to have been issued from Machharuli
Post Office vide Regn. No. 519 dated 4.1.94 to postmaster
Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.86,500/ to him
against these KVPs. These KVPs were presented along with
Identity Slip Nos. 18/43893.
56. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Sohan Pal
Sharma @ Panditji (A2) personating himself as Harpal Singh
went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 29.7.98 and
presented KVPs bearing serial no. 28CC982171 to
28CC982175 purported to have been issued from Machharuli
Post Office vide Regn. No. 520 dated 4.1.94 to postmaster
CC No. 19/2009 Page 23 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.86,500/ to him
against these KVPs.
57. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Sohan Pal
Sharma @ Panditji (A2) personating himself as Harpal Singh
went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 7.12.98 and
presented KVPs bearing serial no. 35BB922201 to 35BB922210
purported to have been issued from Karnal Head Post Office
vide Regn. No. 525 dated 23.3.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh
(A8) who made payment of Rs.86,500/ to him against these
KVPs.
58. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Sohan Pal
Sharma @ Panditji (A2) personating himself as Harpal Singh
went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 7.12.98 and
presented KVPs bearing serial no. 35BB922211 to 35BB922220
purported to have been issued from Karnal Head Post Office
vide Regn. No. 526 dated 23.3.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh
(A8) who made payment of Rs.86,500/ to him against these
KVPs.
59. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Sohan Pal
Sharma @ Panditji (A2) personating himself as Harpal Singh
went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 8.12.98 and
presented KVPs bearing serial no. 35BB922221 to 35BB922230
CC No. 19/2009 Page 24 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
purported to have been issued from Karnal Head Post Office
vide Regn. No. 527 dated 23.3.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh
(A8) who made payment of Rs.86,500/ to him against these
KVPs.
60. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Sohan Pal
Sharma @ Panditji (A2) personating himself as Harpal Singh
went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 8.12.98 and
presented KVPs bearing serial no. 35BB922231 to 35BB922240
purported to have been issued from Karnal Head Post Office
vide Regn. No. 528 dated 23.3.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh
(A8) who made payment of Rs.86,500/ to him against these
KVPs.
61. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Sohan Pal
Sharma @ Panditji (A2) personating himself as Harpal Singh
went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 12.12.98 and
presented KVPs bearing serial no. 35BB922241 to 35BB922250
purported to have been issued from Karnal Head Post Office
vide Regn. No. 529 dated 23.3.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh
(A8) who made payment of Rs.86,500/ to him against these
KVPs.
62. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Sohan Pal
Sharma @ Panditji (A2) personating himself as Harpal Singh
CC No. 19/2009 Page 25 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 12.12.98 and
presented KVPs bearing serial no. 35BB922251 to 35BB922260
purported to have been issued from Karnal Head Post Office
vide Regn. No. 530 dated 23.3.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh
(A8) who made payment of Rs.86,500/ to him against these
KVPs.
63. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Sohan Pal
Sharma @ Panditji (A2) personating himself as Harpal Singh
went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 12.12.98 and
presented KVPs bearing serial no. 35BB922261 to 35BB922270
purported to have been issued from Karnal Head Post Office
vide Regn. No. 531 dated 23.3.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh
(A8) who made payment of Rs.86,500/ to him against these
KVPs.
64. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Sohan Pal
Sharma @ Panditji (A2) personating himself as Harpal Singh
went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 14.12.98 and
presented KVPs bearing serial no. 35BB922271 to 35BB922280
purported to have been issued from Karnal Head Post Office
vide Regn. No. 532 dated 23.3.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh
(A8) who made payment of Rs.86,500/ to him against these
KVPs.
CC No. 19/2009 Page 26 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
65. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Sohan Pal
Sharma @ Panditji (A2) personating himself as Harpal Singh
went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 14.12.98 and
presented KVPs bearing serial no. 35BB922281 to 35BB922290
purported to have been issued from Karnal Head Post Office
vide Regn. No. 533 dated 23.3.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh
(A8) who made payment of Rs.86,500/ to him against these
KVPs.
66. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Sohan Pal
Sharma @ Panditji (A2) personating himself as Harpal Singh
went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 14.12.98 and
presented KVPs bearing serial no. 35BB922291 to 35BB922300
purported to have been issued from Karnal Head Post Office
vide Regn. No. 534 dated 23.3.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh
(A8) who made payment of Rs.86,500/ to him against these
KVPs.
67. Investigation has thus revealed that accused Sohan Pal
Sharma @ Panditji (A2) has personated himself as Chaudhary
Harpal Singh and presented before accused Alwar Singh (A8)
Postmaster Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office 125 above referred
stolen/forged KVPs of the face value of Rs.7,50,000/ and
cheated the Government of India by fraudulent means to the
CC No. 19/2009 Page 27 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
tune of Rs.12,97,500/.
68. Investigation has further revealed that Sh.Rohtash Kanwar
personating himself as Ramesh Kumar Sharma went to Hari
Nagar Ashram Post Office on 5.3.99 and presented KVPs bearing
serial no. 34CC579620 to 34CC579629 purported to have
been issued from Batwadi Post Office Akola444302 vide Regn.
No. 975 dated 4.2.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh (A8) who
made payment of Rs.1,86,000/ to him against these KVPs.
69. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Rohtash
Kanwar personating himself as Ramesh Kumar Sharma again
went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 5.3.99 and
represented KVPs bearing serial no. 34CC579633 to
34CC579642 purported to have been issued from Batwadi Post
Office Akola444302 vide Regn. No. 977 dated 4.2.94 to
postmaster Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.
1,86,000/ to him against these KVPs.
70. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Rohtash
Kanwar personating himself as Ramesh Kumar Sharma again
went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 6.3.99 and presented
KVPs bearing serial no. 34CC579643 to 34CC579652
purported to have been issued from Batwadi Post Office
Akola444302 vide Regn. No. 978 dated 4.2.94 to postmaster
CC No. 19/2009 Page 28 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.1,86,000/ to him
against these KVPs.
71. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Rohtash
Kanwar personating himself as Ramesh Kumar Sharma again
went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 6.3.99 and presented
KVPs bearing serial no. 34CC579653 to 34CC579662
purported to have been issued from Batwadi Post Office
Akola444302 vide Regn. No. 979 dated 4.2.94 to postmaster
Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.1,86,000/ to him
against these KVPs.
72. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Rohtash
Kanwar personating himself as Ramesh Kumar Sharma again
went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 69.3.99 and
presented KVPs bearing serial no. 34CC579663 to
34CC579672 purported to have been issued from Batwadi Post
Office Akola444302 vide Regn. No. 980 dated 4.2.94 to
postmaster Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.
1,86,000/ to him against these KVPs.
73. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Rohtash
Kanwar personating himself as Ramesh Kumar Sharma again
went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 9.3.99 and presented
KVPs bearing serial no. 34CC579673 to 34CC579682
CC No. 19/2009 Page 29 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
purported to have been issued from Batwadi Post Office
Akola444302 vide Regn. No. 981 dated 4.2.94 to postmaster
Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.1,86,000/ to him
against these KVPs.
74. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Rohtash
Kanwar personating himself as Ramesh Kumar Sharma again
went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 910.3.99 and
presented KVPs bearing serial no. 34CC579683 to
34CC579692 purported to have been issued from Batwadi Post
Office Akola444302 vide Regn. No. 982 dated 4.2.94 to
postmaster Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.
1,86,000/ to him against these KVPs.
75. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Rohtash
Kanwar personating himself as Ramesh Kumar Sharma again
went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 1011.3.99 and
presented KVPs bearing serial no. 34CC579693 to
34CC579699 purported to have been issued from Batwadi Post
Office Akola444302 vide Regn. No. 983 dated 4.2.94 to
postmaster Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.
1,30,200/ to him against these KVPs.
76. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Rohtash
Kanwar personating himself as Ramesh Kumar Sharma again
CC No. 19/2009 Page 30 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 23.3.99 and
presented KVPs bearing serial no. 57CC823117 to
57CC823126 purported to have been issued from Hata Post
Office vide Regn. No. 1006 dated 18.3.94 to postmaster Alwar
Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.1,86,000/ to him against
these KVPs.
77. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Rohtash
Kanwar personating himself as Ramesh Kumar Sharma again
went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 23.3.99 and
presented KVPs bearing serial no. 57CC823137 to
57CC823146 purported to have been issued from Hata Post
Office vide Regn. No. 1008 dated 18.3.94 to postmaster Alwar
Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.1,86,000/ to him against
these KVPs.
78. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Rohtash
Kanwar personating himself as Ramesh Kumar Sharma again
went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 23.3.99 and
presented KVPs bearing serial no. 57CC823147 to
57CC823156 purported to have been issued from Hata Post
Office vide Regn. No. 1009 dated 18.3.94 to postmaster Alwar
Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.1,86,000/ to him against
these KVPs.
CC No. 19/2009 Page 31 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
79. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Rohtash
Kanwar personating himself as Ramesh Kumar Sharma again
went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 24.3.99 and
presented KVPs bearing serial no. 57CC823157 to
57CC823166 purported to have been issued from Hata Post
Office vide Regn. No. 1010 dated 18.3.94 to postmaster Alwar
Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.1,86,000/ to him against
these KVPs.
80. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Rohtash
Kanwar personating himself as Ramesh Kumar Sharma again
went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 24.3.99 and
presented KVPs bearing serial no. 35BB940201 to 35BB920220
purported to have been issued from Hata Post Office vide Regn.
No. 1011 dated 18.3.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh (A8) who
made payment of Rs.1,86,000/ to him against these KVPs.
81. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Rohtash
Kanwar personating himself as Ramesh Kumar Sharma again
went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 24.3.99 and
presented KVPs bearing serial no. 35BB940221 to 35BB920240
purported to have been issued from Hata Post Office vide Regn.
No. 1012 dated 18.3.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh (A8) who
made payment of Rs.1,86,000/ to him against these KVPs.
CC No. 19/2009 Page 32 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
82. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Rohtash
Kanwar personating himself as Ramesh Kumar Sharma again
went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 242627.3.99 and
presented KVPs bearing serial no. 57CC823131 to
57CC823136 purported to have been issued from Hata Post
Office vide Regn. No. 1007 dated 18.3.94 to postmaster Alwar
Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.1,11,600/ to him against
these KVPs.
83. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Rohtash
Kanwar personating himself as Ramesh Kumar Sharma again
went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 26.3.99 and
presented KVPs bearing serial no. 35BB940241 to 35BB940260
purported to have been issued from Hata Post Office vide Regn.
No. 1013 dated 18.3.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh (A8) who
made payment of Rs.1,86,000/ to him against these KVPs.
84. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Rohtash
Kanwar personating himself as Ramesh Kumar Sharma again
went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 26.3.99 and
presented KVPs bearing serial no. 35BB940261 to 35BB940280
purported to have been issued from Hata Post Office vide Regn.
No. 1014 dated 18.3.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh (A8) who
made payment of Rs.1,86,000/ to him against these KVPs.
CC No. 19/2009 Page 33 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
85. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Rohtash
Kanwar personating himself as Ramesh Kumar Sharma again
went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 26.3.99 and
presented KVPs bearing serial no. 35BB940281 to 35BB940300
purported to have been issued from Hata Post Office vide Regn.
No. 1015 dated 18.3.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh (A8) who
made payment of Rs.1,86,000/ to him against these KVPs.
86. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Rohtash
Kanwar personating himself as Ramesh Kumar Sharma again
went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 2.6.99 and presented
KVPs bearing serial no. 46CC855701 to 46CC855710
purported to have been issued from Rajkishore, Rajkot Post
Office 360001 vide Regn. No. 346 dated 21.4.94 to postmaster
Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.1,86,000/ to him
against these KVPs.
87. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Rohtash
Kanwar personating himself as Ramesh Kumar Sharma again
went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 2.6.99 and presented
KVPs bearing serial no. 46CC855711 to 46CC855720
purported to have been issued from Rajkishore, Rajkot Post
Office 360001 vide Regn. No. 347 dated 21.4.94 to postmaster
Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.1,86,000/ to him
CC No. 19/2009 Page 34 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
against these KVPs.
88. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Rohtash
Kanwar personating himself as Ramesh Kumar Sharma again
went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 4.6.99 and presented
KVPs bearing serial no. 46CC855721 to 46CC855730
purported to have been issued from Rajkishore, Rajkot Post
Office 360001 vide Regn. No. 348 dated 21.4.94 to postmaster
Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.1,86,000/ to him
against these KVPs.
89. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Rohtash
Kanwar personating himself as Ramesh Kumar Sharma again
went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 4.6.99 and presented
KVPs bearing serial no. 46CC855731 to 46CC855740
purported to have been issued from Rajkishore, Rajkot Post
Office 360001 vide Regn. No. 349 dated 21.4.94 to postmaster
Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.1,86,000/ to him
against these KVPs.
90. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Rohtash
Kanwar personating himself as Ramesh Kumar Sharma again
went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 4.6.99 and presented
KVPs bearing serial no. 46CC855741 to 46CC855750
purported to have been issued from Rajkishore, Rajkot Post
CC No. 19/2009 Page 35 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
Office 360001 vide Regn. No. 350 dated 21.4.94 to postmaster
Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.1,86,000/ to him
against these KVPs.
91. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Rohtash
Kanwar personating himself as Ramesh Kumar Sharma again
went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 7.6.99 and presented
KVPs bearing serial no. 46CC855751 to 46CC855760
purported to have been issued from Rajkishore, Rajkot Post
Office 360001 vide Regn. No. 351 dated 21.4.94 to postmaster
Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.1,86,000/ to him
against these KVPs.
92. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Rohtash
Kanwar personating himself as Ramesh Kumar Sharma again
went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 7.6.99 and presented
KVPs bearing serial no. 46CC855761 to 46CC855770
purported to have been issued from Rajkishore, Rajkot Post
Office 360001 vide Regn. No. 352 dated 21.4.94 to postmaster
Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.1,86,000/ to him
against these KVPs.
93. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Rohtash
Kanwar personating himself as Ramesh Kumar Sharma again
went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 7.6.99 and presented
CC No. 19/2009 Page 36 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
KVPs bearing serial no. 46CC855771 to 46CC855780
purported to have been issued from Rajkishore, Rajkot Post
Office 360001 vide Regn. No. 353 dated 21.4.94 to postmaster
Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.1,86,000/ to him
against these KVPs.
94. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Rohtash
Kanwar personating himself as Ramesh Kumar Sharma again
went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 11.6.99 and
presented KVPs bearing serial no. 46CC855781 to
46CC855790 purported to have been issued from Rajkishore,
Rajkot Post Office 360001 vide Regn. No. 354 dated 21.4.94 to
postmaster Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.
1,86,000/ to him against these KVPs.
95. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Rohtash
Kanwar personating himself as Ramesh Kumar Sharma again
went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 11.6.99 and
presented KVPs bearing serial no. 46CC855791 to
46CC855800 purported to have been issued from Rajkishore,
Rajkot Post Office 360001 vide Regn. No. 355 dated 21.4.94 to
postmaster Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.
1,86,000/ to him against these KVPs.
96. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Rohtash
CC No. 19/2009 Page 37 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
Kanwar personating himself as Ramesh Kumar Sharma again
went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 16.6.99 and
presented KVPs bearing serial no. 46CC855801 to
46CC855810 purported to have been issued from Rajkishore,
Rajkot Post Office 360001 vide Regn. No. 356 dated 21.4.94 to
postmaster Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.
1,86,000/ to him against these KVPs.
97. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Rohtash
Kanwar personating himself as Ramesh Kumar Sharma again
went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 16.6.99 and
presented KVPs bearing serial no. 46CC855811 to
46CC855820 purported to have been issued from Rajkishore,
Rajkot Post Office 360001 vide Regn. No. 357 dated 21.4.94 to
postmaster Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.
1,86,000/ to him against these KVPs.
98. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Rohtash
Kanwar personating himself as Ramesh Kumar Sharma again
went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 16.6.99 and
presented KVPs bearing serial no. 46CC855821 to
46CC855830 purported to have been issued from Rajkishore,
Rajkot Post Office 360001 vide Regn. No. 358 dated 21.4.94 to
postmaster Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.
CC No. 19/2009 Page 38 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
1,86,000/ to him against these KVPs.
99. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Rohtash
Kanwar personating himself as Ramesh Kumar Sharma again
went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 18.6.99 and
presented KVPs bearing serial no. 46CC855831 to
46CC855840 purported to have been issued from Rajkishore,
Rajkot Post Office 360001 vide Regn. No. 359 dated 21.4.94 to
postmaster Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.
1,86,000/ to him against these KVPs.
100. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Rohtash
Kanwar personating himself as Ramesh Kumar Sharma again
went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 18.6.99 and
presented KVPs bearing serial no. 46CC855841 to
46CC855850 purported to have been issued from Rajkishore,
Rajkot Post Office 360001 vide Regn. No. 360 dated 21.4.94 to
postmaster Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.
1,86,000/ to him against these KVPs.
101. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Rohtash
Kanwar personating himself as Ramesh Kumar Sharma again
went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 18.6.99 and
presented KVPs bearing serial no. 46CC855851 to
46CC855860 purported to have been issued from Rajkishore,
CC No. 19/2009 Page 39 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
Rajkot Post Office 360001 vide Regn. No. 361 dated 21.4.94 to
postmaster Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.
1,86,000/ to him against these KVPs.
102. Investigation has thus revealed that accused Rohtash
Kanwar has personated himself as Ramesh Kumar Sharma and
presented before accused Alwar Singh (A8) Postmaster Hari
Nagar Ashram Post Office total number of 383 above referred
stolen/forged KVPs of the face value of Rs.33,30,000/ and
encashed the same by fraudulent means to the tune of Rs.
61,93,800/.
103. Investigation has further revealed that on 19.6.99 on the
directions of accused K. M. Singh, accused Rohtash Kanwar had
gone to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office, New Delhi and
presented KVPS worth Rs.8 lacs approximately for encashment.
Since accused Alwar Singh was proceeding on training to
Saharanpur he asked accused Rohtash Singh to get NC32 forms
photocopied and submit the details to accused Satish Pal Singh
for verification. Accused Satish Pal Singh in pursuance to the
criminal conspiracy signed those eight NC32 forms and put the
stamp of Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office and handed over the
NC32 forms to accused K. M. Singh for forging the verification.
He did not fill in the details of the KVPs which were to be
CC No. 19/2009 Page 40 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
verified. These eight NC32 forms bearing only the signatures
of accused Satish Pal Singh and stamp of Hari Nagar Ashram
Post Office were recovered from the car of accused K. M. Singh
on his pointing out.
104. Investigation has further revealed that accused Alwar
Singh (A8) posted as Sub Postmaster Hari Nagar Ashram Post
Office abused his official position as public servant with
dishonest intention and made payments againt stolen and
forged KVPs bearing serial no. 45CC163601 to 45CC163700,
45CC163321 to 45CC163400, 35BB936301 to 936400,
34CC579620 to 34CC579629, 34CC579633 to 34CC579699,
46CC855701 to 855860, 35BB940201 to 35BB940300,
35BB940541 to 35BB940600, 57CC823117 to 823126,
57CC823131 to 57CC823166, 57CC811609 to 57CC811652,
28CC982151 to 28CC982175, 35BB936601 to 35BB936700,
35BB922201 to 35BB922300, 31BB007761 to 31BB007800,
28CC982031 to28CC982040, 46CC982201 to 46CC982300,
28CC970301 to 28CC970336, 28CC970338 to 970348,
35BB940301 to 940500 by intentionally avoiding verification of
the KVPs from Lost Circulars issued by the Departmentof Posts
from time to time and he deliberately did not follow the laid
down procedures in the Post Office Savings Bank Manual Vol. II
CC No. 19/2009 Page 41 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
regarding encashment of Cash Certificates. Sh. Alwar Singh
also failed to obtain/verify the proof of identity of Laxman
Prasad @ Tahkur, Sohan Pal Sharma @ Panditji and Rohtash
Kanwar. Accused Alwar Singh also deliberately did not check
that the identity slip booklets bearing the same serial number
that were obtained fraudulently by accused K. M. Singh, Harish
Chander, Sohan Pal Sharma and Hari Narain Pal @ Neta from
Lodi Road Post Office were the same used for Rajaji Puram and
Machhrauli Post Offices at the same time. Accused Alwar singh
also deliberately did not check that the serial number of the
registration number of Char Bagh Post Office on 8.3.94 was
1403 and on 28.3.94 it was showing registration number as
1401 which is not possible. The KVPs bearing serial no.
45CC163671 to 45CC163674 and 45CC163675 to
45CC163680 were encahsed by him on these faulty registration
numbers. Accused Alwar Singh also deliberately overlooked the
fact that KVP bearing serial no. 45CC163373 was not bearing
any registration number and encahsed the same for Laxman
Prasad for Rs.1,86,000/. Thus by abusing his official position
as a Public Servant, he caused wrongful loss to Government of
India to the tune of Rs.1,89,53,700/ entrusted to him and
corresponding undue pecuniary advantage to himself and for co
CC No. 19/2009 Page 42 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
accused persons.
105. On the above stated allegations charges under Section
13(1)(d) read with Section 13 (2) of PC Act 1998 and
419/420467/468/471 IPC were framed against accused Sohan
Pal Sharma (A2).
A charge under Section 419/420/467/468/471 IPC was
framed against accused Laxman Parsad @ Thakur (A3).
A charge under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2)
of PC Act and 409 IPC was framed against accused Alwar Singh
(A8).
A charge under Section 120 B IPC read with Section
419/420/467/468/471/409 IPC and 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of PC
Act was framed against accused Krishan Madhwa (A1), Sohan
Pal Sharma (A2), Laxman Parasad @ Thakur (A3), Rohtas
Kanwar (A4), Hari Narain Pal (A6), Satish Pal Singh (A7) and
Alwar Singh (A8).
A charge under Section 419/420/467/468/471 IPC was
framed against accused Rohtas Kanwar (A4). All the accused
persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
106. In order to prove its case, Central Bureau of Investigation
has examined as many as 39 witnesses in all. Let me state in
brief, the statements made by the prosecution witnesses:
CC No. 19/2009 Page 43 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
107. PW1 Sh. Ishwar Singh, the official from the Post Office
Malviya Nagar, testified the procedure of encashment of KVPs
by a post office.
108. PW2 Sh. Roop Chand, Asst. Superintendent of Post
Office, Foreign Post Office, proved the Post Office Savings Bank
Manual Volume II Ex.PA.
109. PW3 Sh. BDL Srivastava, Senior Superintendent Post
Office, Central Division Meghdoot Bhawan Link Road, New
Delhi. He accorded sanction to prosecute accused Sohan Pal
Sharma (A2) vide his order Ex.PW3/A.
110. PW4 Dr. D. Veena Kumari proved sanction under Section
19 of Prevention of Corruption Act to prosecute accused Alwar
Singh (A8) and accused Satish Pal Singh (A7), which is
Ex.PW4/A.
111. PW5 Sh. A. Kharkwal, Director Postal Services, Delhi
Circle, New Delhi. He accorded sanction under Section 19 of
Prevention of Corruption Act to prosecute accused K. M. Singh
(A1). The sanction order is Ex.PW5/1.
112. PW6 Sh. Sunil Krishan Nagar testified that from the year
1995 to 2000 he was running a firm M/s Data Pro Services at
Rajinder Palace and that he used to design as per the
specification given by the customers. He testified that accused
CC No. 19/2009 Page 44 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
K. M. Singh (A1) along with H. N. Pal (A6) came to his shop
and requested him to design 3 or 4 designs of stamps of various
post offices. He testified that he prepared the designs and
handed over the same to them next day, after getting the
charges. In cross examination he testified that he had prepared
the designs of stamps impression and 4 specimen were prepared
on each paper.
113. PW7 Sh. Man Mohan Singh testified that accused Alwar
Singh (A8) had given his specimen signatures.
114. PW8 Sh. Lala Ram Bharti deposed that he knew Sh. Ram
Kumar Paliwal being employed in his division who came to his
office with coaccused Hari Narain Pal @ Neta alonwith one
another person in the year 1996 and asked him by showing
printed sample slip as to whether such slip could be made
available to him then he (Lala Ram Bharti) took Ram Kumar
Paliwal inside the room of the Post Office, Lodhi Colony where
orderly N.K.Joshi was on duty and asked him to give similar
slips after showing him the sample slips
given by the said Ram Kumar Paliwal. Then peon N.K.Joshi
made search for the slips in the store and handed over two
booklets containing similar slips to Ram Kumar Paliwal and
thereafter, he had accompanied with him in their vehicle parked
CC No. 19/2009 Page 45 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
outside the post office, and had some cold drinks with them
(Ram Kumar Paliwal and accused Netaji) and from there
accused Netaji and Paliwal left the building of the Post Office
along with the slip booklets. He further deposed that 1520
days after the above visit accused Hari Narain Pal @ Netaji
accompanied with Ram Kumar Paliwal and some other person
who was accompanying them at the time of his first visit again
came to his office at Lodhi Road. On being asked by Ram Kumar
Paliwal, he got 23 more booklets containing the
aforementioned slips which they took away with them.
He has further stated that his statement was recorded
during the course of investigation by the Investigation officer
stands proved as Ex.PW 9/A whereas his statement recorded on
13.9.1999 under section 164 Cr.P.C by the Ld.M.M is proved as
Ex.PW9/B.
115. PW9 Sh. Dinesh Chand Sharma testified that in the year
1999 he was working as Assistant Superintendent Post Office
Division in the office of Senior Superintendent, New Delhi South
East Division, New Delhi. At the direction of his superior officer
he reached Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office and took hold of SO
Sub Office Accounts in which all the cash transactions of Sub
Post Office were reflected. He testified that heavy payment of
CC No. 19/2009 Page 46 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
KVPs were made at the post ofice during the period from April
1998 to June, 1999. During that period accused Alwar Singh
(A8) was posted as Sub Post Master and accused Satish Pal
Singh (A7) was posted as Postal Assistant in the said Post
Office. He took hold of the relevant records viz purchase
applications of KVPs and discharge Journals and found that in
all the cases KVPs were shown to have been purchased in other
circular of Post Office i.e. outside Delhi. It was also found that
the person named in the purchased application had been shown
residing in and around Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office areas and
most of the applications of the certificate were shown to have
been transferred from Jind, Charbagh Lucknow, Rajaji Puram
Lucknow, Raj Kishore, Hata, Akola, Machhrauli, Karnal and
Rewa. On perusal of the applications it was revealed that the
certificates were shown to have been received by transfer by
way of NC32. He instructed another official to go and verify the
address given in the purchase applications and he along with
Sh. G. M. Verma, SSPO went to Lodhi Road Head Office with
the requisition letter for paid KVPs from Hari Nagar Ashram
Post Office and also verified the paid certificates from the
Director of Accounts Postal. Telegrams were sent to the
Controlling Offices of the Post office from where these
CC No. 19/2009 Page 47 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
certificates were issued. All the Post Offices responded that
those certificates were never sold at their Post Offices. In the
meantime Sh. G. S. Yadav reported that either the addresses
written on the purchase applications were fake or the persons
named in the application were not residing at the addresses. He
also came to know that no post office with the name of Raj
Kishore existed in his division. He proved the letter of Sh. C. M.
Verma SSPO as Ex.PW9/A. He proved the the list of KVPs
purportedly issued by the aforesaid post offices. He also proved
the reports of G. S. Yadav PRIP about the verification of the
addresses of the persons purportedly holding the said KVPs. He
proved telegram sent to the aforesaid post offices and the replies
from the concerned post offices from where the questioned KVPs
were issued.
116. PW10 Sh. Krishan Madan Singh is the elder brother of K.
M. Singh (A1) and proved a few property documents concerning
himself and his wife.
117. PW11 Sh. Ravinder Kumar Lal was posted as ASP
Investigation in the office of Chief Post Master General Patna
from August 1988 till 12.3.2001. He proved the proforma
Ex.PW11/B. For the period from 23.3.1990 to 29.4.1999 in
which short deliveries of security papers were reported by the
CC No. 19/2009 Page 48 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
CSD Office Patna. (original in CC No. 17/02).
118. PW12 Sh. Shambhu Nath was the Assistant Post Master
(Treasury) Lodhi Road Post Office, New Delhi. He testified that
the sub post offices were authorized to maintain a minimum
cash balance ranging between Rs.5000/ to Rs.20,000/. He
testified that in the year 1998, accused Alwar Siongh (A8) was
posted as Sub Master in Hari Nagar Ashram Chowk Post Office,
New Delhi. He proved the SO daily accounts of various dates.
119. PW13 Sh. Hawa Singh is the Sub Post Master of
Machhrauli Post Office Distt. Jhajjar in the year 1998. He
proved the stock book cum issue register for KVPs w.e.f.
5.11.1988 till 14.2.1998. He testified that the KVPs in question
purportedly having been issued from Machhrualit Post Officer
were not actually issued from the said post office.
120. PW14 Sh. M. D. Verma was the Sub Post Master at
Charbagh Post Office, District Lucknow from February 1998 till
31.7.2002. He proved the stock register of his post office and
testified that KVPs in question purportedly issued from this post
office were actually not issued from this post office.
121. PW15 Sh. Pritam Singh was the Post Master, Jind. He
proved the stock register of Jind Head Post Office and testified
that KVPs purportedly were issued from Jind Post Office but
CC No. 19/2009 Page 49 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
actually were not issued from the said Post Office.
122. PW16 Sh. S. J. Mahajan was the Sub Post Master at
Balapur Post office, District Akola, Maharashtra. He also
testified that one branch of this post office is situated in village
Batwadi. He testified that these KVPs could not be issued from
Batwadi post office because it is only a branch post office and is
not authorized to issue KVPs.
123. PW17 Sh. Chander Bhan (I am not inclined to discuss
this witness because he is concerned with accused Rohtash
Kanwar (A4), who has already been convicted on his plea of
guilt).
124. PW18 Sh. G. S. Yadav was posted as PRIP in the DHQ
Post Office, New Delhi. Apart from proving various letters, he
proved his reports in respect of the verification of the names and
addresses of the persons, who were purportedly the holders of
the KVPs in question.
125. PW19 Sh. Chhitarmal Verma was Senior Superintendent
of Post Offices South Division, New Delhi. He proved various
letters including the letters sent to different post offices.
126. PW20 Sh. Dharam Pal was the tenant of accused H. N.
Pal (A6) and proved the ration card and photographs of this
accused.
CC No. 19/2009 Page 50 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
127. PW21 Sh. S. N. Bhardwaj, Assistant Post Master testified
that it was incumbent upon the staff to tally the KVPs brought
for encashment with the particulars of the lost/stolen KVPs
mentioned in the circular but due to acute shortage of staff, it
was not practically possible to cross check details of the KVPs.
128. PW22 Sh. Govind Singh Rattan Thakur, Superintendent
of RMS, L Division, Bhusawal, District Jal Gaon, Maharashtra.
He testified that the KVPs in quetion were not issued from the
post offices namely Hata Branch Post Office or Batwadi Post
office.
129. PW23 Mohd. Anwar testified that one Ramesh had given
him 1000 KVPs of denomination of Rs.10,000/ each and that
he used to sell them for a profit to one D. B. Singh.
130. PW24 Sh. Roshan Lal Yadav is the Inspector, CBI. He
took specimen signatures of accused K. M. Singh (A1) and H. N.
Pal (A6).
131. PW25 Sh. Ramesh Kumar @ Netaji testified that he
purchased the KVPs from one Ranjit and had sold the same to
one Anwar.
132. PW26 Sh. S. Balasubhramaniam, Deputy Superintendent
of Police, CBI. He took specimen signatures of accused Laxman
Prasad (A3) at the instructions of the Investigation Officer in
CC No. 19/2009 Page 51 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
presence of independent witness namely Laxmi Narayan.
133. PW27 Sh. Nand Kishore Joshi testified that Lala Ram
Bharti was posted as Postal Assistant in Lodhi Road, Post Ofice
and that he (PW27) was a postman in the said Post Office. He
testified that while he was performing duties in the stock room
of the Post Office, where NSCs, KVPs etc. used to be kept, in the
year 1996 Sh. Lala Ram Bharti approached him for delivery of
some paper identity slips. At his request he provided him the
loose sheets of defective identity slips lying in the stock room.
PW27 testified against that Sh. Lala Ram Bharti visited him
against after one month and further asked for the identity paper
booklet but he (PW27) refused to give him the identity slips.
134. PW28 Sh. Mahender Pal Sharma testified that K. M.
Singh (A1) had purchased the flat from him and had also
purchased jewellery from his nephew.
135. PW29 Sh. Devender Kumar testified that in the year
1996 he was posted as Chowkidar at Dadri Post Office. In the
month of November 1996, one Ram Niwas introduced him with
one person called 'Neta'. They met him to have a drink and on
drinking the wine, his health deteriorated. Thereafter Netaji
asked for the keys of the Post Offices. Keys were taken out from
his pocket. They were asking about the date stamps. He
CC No. 19/2009 Page 52 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
testified that both the persons went inside the hall and at the
time of leaving main hall of the post office, they asked him not
to disclose this incident. He testified that they were holding
bundles rapped in the newspapers. On next day, he brought the
incident to the notice of Post Master. On inquiry from the Post
Master he told that nothing was stolen. He testified that he
found one stamp lying in open ground after those persons had
left post office. 2 or 3 stamps were lying scattered position near
the box.
136. PW30 Sh. Ram Niwas was working as Packers in Post
Office Surajpur Greater Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar
from 1989 to 1997. The witness turned hostile and did not
support the prosecution case.
137. PW31 Sh. Janardhan Singh testified that a circular of the
theft/lost KVPs was issued in the office of Senior Superintendent
Post Office and thereafter sent to all the Post Offices.
138. PW32 Sh. Alok Pande was posted as Senior
Superintendent of Post Office, Delhi. He testified that in July
1998, one Kadam Singh ASPO informed him on telephone that
he had checked the records of Mangol Puri Post Office and he
suspected something fishy. He sought permission to check the
records, which accounting office of the Mangol Puri Post Office.
CC No. 19/2009 Page 53 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
He also went to Ashok Vihar Post Office. After checking the
records, Kadam Singh reported the encashment of lost KVPs.
Accordingly FIR was lodged with PS Mangol Puri.
139. PW33 Sh. H. C. Sharma is Addl. S. P. in Anti Corruption
branch, CBI. He testified that he remained posted as Inspector
CBI, New Delhi from June 1997 to April 2003 and he was the
Investigation Officer of a case RC 4(E)/98/BS & FC/DLI. He
testified that during the course of this investigation, he seized
FIR No. 29/98 from Girinder Mohan, Inspector GRPF, Patna,
which related to the theft of KVPs belonging to 46CC series.
140. PW34 Sh. Ajay Kumar Gautam testified that in the year
1999, he was running shorkshop in the name and style of M/s
Pappu Motors, Sector12, Vijay Nagar, Ghaziabad. He got an
information about an accident of a vehicle having taken place
near Hindon River bypass. He rushed to the spot. The
condition of the vehicle was deteriorated and nobody was found
present near the vehicle. Thereafter the said vehicle was
brought at his workshop. After waiting for two days, he started
the job of denting. After 5 or 7 days some CBI officials came to
his workshop and asked as to why this vehicle reached in his
workshop. A written instruction was given to him not to deliver
the vehicle to anyone. The witness was declared hostile. In the
CC No. 19/2009 Page 54 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
cross examination by Ld. Public Prosecutor, he admitted that
CBI made inquiries from him in respect of vehicle no. DL 3C F
0838 but he denied that he knew accused K. M. Singh (A1).
However he admitted that the vehicle is still lying in his
workshop and colour of the vehicle had been changed to light
green.
141. PW35 Sh. Ram Kumar Paliwal turned hostile and stated
that accused K. M. Singh (A1) never met him in June 1996 for
arranging identity slips booklet. In cross examination by Ld.
Public Prosecutor, he admitted that his statement was recorded
by CBI on 18.8.1999.
142. PW36 Sh. Yamuna Prasad Pandey was ASP in the office
of Superintendent Post Office. He remained associated with Sh.
Kadam Singh in respect of the inquiries about the fraudulent
encashment of the KVPs.
143. PW37 Dr. R. Sharma, the hand writing expert proved his
opinion.
144. PW38 Sh. Naresh Prashad testified that in the year 1999,
he was pulling rickshaw in Patna. He testified that he knows
Bharat, Ramesh and Bengali. He testified that Bharat took him
to the shop of Ramesh. They asked him to take some papers to
Ramesh. The said papers were of red colour. Bharat gave Rs.
CC No. 19/2009 Page 55 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
200/ to him as fare.
145. PW39 Inspector V. K. Pandey is the Investigating Officer
of this case.
146. Statements under Section 313 CrPC of all the accused
persons were recorded. This court also examined one witness
namely Sh. Gyanesh Kumar Jain under Section 311 CrPC.
147. In defence accused Satish Pal Singh (A7) & Laxman
Prasad (A3) have examined DW1 Sh. Syed Faizal Huda as a
defence witness. After obtaining permission from this court, he
had randomly taken photographs of disputed & specimen
handwriting from the judicial file and thereafter examined the
disputed writing/signatures with specimen writing/signatures of
Satish Pal Singh (A7) and Laxman Prasad (A3). He proved the
report as Ex.DW1/A in respect of accused Satish Pal Singh (A7)
and the report Ex.DW1/C in respect of accused Laxman Prasad
(A3). He testified that the disputed signatures and hand
writings were not written by the writers of the specimen
signatures/writings.
I may add here that Sh. Gyanesh Kumar Jain was
summoned by this Court under Section 311 CrPC in another
connected case i.e. CBI Vs. K. M. Singh etc. (Nirankari Post
Office, CC No.1/10). In view of the denial of giving specimen
CC No. 19/2009 Page 56 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
signatures by the accused Sohan Pal Sharma (A2) in this case, I
deemed it appropriate to examine Sh. Gyanesh Kumar Jain
under Section 311 CrPC. He testified that he had witnessed the
taking of specimen signatures/hand writings of accused Satish
Pal Singh (A7) and Sohan Pal Sharma (A2).
148. It is necessary to mention here that Accused Alwar Singh
(A8) died on 10.2.2011 and proceedings against him abated
vide order dated 28.3.2011. Accused Harish Chander (A5) was
discharged vide order dated 31.5.2003 and accused Rohtash
Kanwar (A4) was convicted on 11.11.2010 on his voluntarily
pleading guilty.
149. Before discussing the role of each accused, I would point
that PW9 Dinesh Chand Sharma, the Assistant Superintendent
Post Office, Delhi, PW13 Hawa Singh, PW14 M. D. Verma,
PW15 Pritam Singh, PW16 S. J. Mahajan, PW19 Chitramal
Verma, PW22 Govind Singh Ratan, all postal officials have
proved that the KVPs in question have not been issued from the
post offices namely Char Bagh Lucknow, Jind Head Post Office,
Rajaji Puram Lucknow Post Office, Machhrauli Post Office,
Karnal Head Post Office, Raj Kishore Rajkot Post Office, Hata
Post Office and Batwadi Akola Post Office. The KVPs
fraudulently encashed from Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office were
CC No. 19/2009 Page 57 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
shown to have been issued from the aforesaid post offices.
None of the accused persons during final arguments has
disputed the fact that these KVPs were not issued from the
aforesaid post offices. Therefore it is not in dispute that forged
stamps of the said post offices have been affixed on these KVPs,
which were encashed in Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office.
Now I take up the case of each accused separately as
under :
Krishan Madhawa Singh (A1)
150. As per charge sheet, this accused was one of the main
conspirators in the present case. It is alleged that accused K. M.
Singh (A1) and H. N. Pal @ Neta (A6) had procured stolen KVPs
from Afzal Siddiqui and Shehzada Siddiquie based in Lucknow.
They had also obtained the identity slip booklets from Lodhi
Road Head Post Office, New Delhi. It is alleged that accused K.
M. Singh (A1) and Satish Pal Singh (A7) had worked together
at Jungpura Post Office and were known to each other. When
accused Satish Pal Singh Singh (A7) was transferred to Hari
Nagar Ashrma Post Office, accused K. M. Singh (A1), H. N. Pal
(A6) and Sohan Pal Sharma (A2) met him and hatched the
conspiracy to encash the stolen KVPS by forging the verification
reports on NC32 forms of issuing post offices. It is alleged that
CC No. 19/2009 Page 58 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
accused Satish Pal Singh (A7) was asked to intercepted the
NC32 forms and hand them to K. M. Singh (A1) and other co
accused persons, who after forging the verification report would
again hand over these forms to accused Satish Pal Singh (A7).
It is alleged that accused Satish Pal Singh (A7) signed on eight
NC32 forms and also put a stamp of Hari Nagar Ashram Post
Office and gave them to accused K. M. Singh (A1) for getting
forged verification report purported to have been issued from
other post offices. It is alleged that these NC32 forms were
recovered from the car of accused K. M. Singh (A1) on his
pointing out. Further it is alleged that accused K. M. Singh (A1)
and H. N. Pal (A6) got prepared round seals/stamps, which
were used to forged the KVPs.
151. Prosecution has examined PW6 Sunil Krishan Nagar, who
has testified that accused K. M. Singh (A1) and H. N. Pal (A6)
has come to his shop and got the designs of the stamps of
various post offices prepared. PW39 Inspector V. K. Pandey has
testified that he had recorded the disclosure statement of
accused K. M. Singh on 24.6.1999, 27.6.1999 and 3.7.1999
collectively exhibited as Ex.PW39/A39. It is further testified
that during the course of investigation, on pointing out of
accused K. M. Singh (A1), 8 NC32 forms (D40 collectively
CC No. 19/2009 Page 59 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
marked as Ex.PW39/A44) bearing the signatures of Ashok
Gupta and Sudha Gupta, bearing the stamp impression of post
office Hari Nagar Ashram, New Delhi dated 22.6.99 were
recovered from the blue colour Zen Maruti card, which were
lying under the mattress beneath driver seat in the presence of
independent witnesses. All these NC32 forms were lying
wrapped in the newspapers. These were recovered vide memo
Ex.PW39/A38. It is pertinent to note that pursuant to
disclosure statement of accused K. M. Singh CBI had found this
car in the workshop of Ajay Kumar Gautam (PW34). Pursuant
to his disclosure statement accused K. M. Singh (A1) took the
Investigating Officer to the car and as per the Ex.PW39/A38,
the 8 NC32 forms were taken out, which were lying under the
mattress beneath the driver seat of Maruti Zen Car. The
Investigating Officer PW39 has testified that during the course
of investigation the car bearing no. DL3SF0838 was given on
superdari to Ajay Kumar Gautam vide superdaginama
Ex.PW36/A41 dated 11.1.2000 in CC No. 7/09 on the
application moved by accused K. M. Singh. It is submitted by
Ld. Public Prosecutor that in this application accused K. M.
Singh had prayed that his vehicle should be given on superdari
to Sh. Ajay Kumar Gautam. Ld. Public Prosecutor has drawn
CC No. 19/2009 Page 60 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
my attention to the superdaginama vide which PW34 Ajay
Kumar Gautam has taken the superdaginama of car no.
DL3CF0838 Maruti 800 pertaining to accused K. M. Singh.
This fact was put to the accused K. M. Singh in question no. 312
in his statement under Section 313 CrPC and he has not denied
this fact.
152. The NC32 forms, which are collectively exhibited as
Ex.PW39/A44 bear the stamps of Hari Nagar Ashram Post
Office and all are dated 22.6.1997. At the place of the
signatures of the holder, there are signatures of Ashok Gupta in
English and Sudha Gupta in Hindi. On these 8 NC32 forms,
accused Satish Pal Singh has written “for transfer” in capacity of
postal assistant. As per the report of PW37 Dr. R. Sharma, the
writing “for transfer” in red pen is that of accused Satish Pal
Singh. I will discuss the report of PW37 Dr. R. Sharma while
discussing the role of accused Satish Pal Singh. Suffice it to say
that the handwriting of Satish Pal Singh on these 8 KVPs in his
official capacity stand proved.
153. It is argued that these KVPs have been planted and that
the question of these 8 KVPs was considered in other three cases
of KVPs scam namely CC No. 13/2008 pertaining to the
fraudulent of encashment of KVPs in Eastern Court Post Office,
CC No. 19/2009 Page 61 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
CC No. 7/2009 pertaining to Mangol Puri Post Office and CC
No. 1/2010 pertaining to Nirankari Colony Post Office. Accused
K. M. Singh has filed the copies of the said judgements and on
perusing the same, I would say that recovering of these Eight
NC32 forms was not a relevant fact in those cases. Those cases
pertained to the other post offices and not to the post office Hari
Nagar Ashram, whereas these NC32 forms have been connected
by the prosecution with the conspiracy in the present case
pertaining to Post Office Hari Nagar Ashram. Therefore the
acquittal of accused K. M. Singh in those cases will not affect
this case.
154. Ld. Public Prosecutor submits that accused K. M.singh had
made disclosure statement dated 3.7.1999 in respect of NC32
forms and stated that he can get it recovered from his Maruti
Zen Car. Ld. Public Prosecutor has drawn my attention to the
disclosure statement dated 27.6.1999 in which accused K. M.
Singh had disclosed that he had purchased Maruti Zen
DL3CF0838 from one Tyagi of Uttam Nagar through H. N. Pal
and that the vehicle was not transferred in his name and that it
had met with an accident and that now the car was under
repairs in a work shop called Pappu Motors. It is submitted by
Ld. Public Prosecutor that pursuant to this disclosure statement
CC No. 19/2009 Page 62 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
Investigating Officer V. K. Pandey along with accused K. M.
Singh went to the service station on 27.6.1999 and met Ajay
Kumar Gautam, proprietor of this work shop and directed him
not to deliver the vehicle to any other person.
155. Ld. Public Prosecutor has drawn my attention to the
disclosure statement dated 3.7.1999 of accused K. M. Singh in
which he disclosed that on 23.6.1999 he made a telephonic call
to accused Satish in post office and inquired about the NC32
forms. Accused Satish told him that the same were ready and
thereafter at about 10:30 pm accused Satish handed over those
NC32 forms. Accused K. M. Singh disclosed that these NC32
forms have been placed by him under the mattress beneath the
driving seat of the Maruti Zen Car. Ld. Public Prosecutor
submits that although this car was searched on 27.6.1999 at the
work shop of Ajay Kumar Gautam but these NC32 forms could
not be traced because the same were placed under the mattress
beneath the driving seat. Accordingly in the presence of Sh. M.
M. Sharma, an official of State Bank of India, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, accused K. M. Singh took them to the blue colour
Maruti zen car and got the NC32 forms recovered. It is
submitted by Ld. Public Prosecutor that accused K. M. Singh
moved an application for release of this Maruti car on superdari.
CC No. 19/2009 Page 63 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
Since the Investigating Officer had not yet seized this vehicle,
therefore the vehicle was seized by Investigating Officer on
16.1.2000 and thereafter its custody was given to the garage
owner namely Pappu i.e. Ajay Kumar Gautam on the application
of accused K. M. Singh. Although the complete details as
submitted by Ld. Public Prosecutor have not given in the
evidence but prosecution has proved by examining PW34 Ajay
Kumar Gautam, the proprietor of Pappu Motors that the vehicle
was found in his custody by CBI. Later on pursuant to the
disclosure statement dated 3.7.1999, the eight NC32 forms
were recovered by the I.O. under the mattress beneath the
driving seat of the car in presence of a independent witness. I
may point out that these 8 NC32 forms were found wrapped in
a newspapers Ex.PW39/A45. This newspapers is of the date
31.5.1999. Note is taken of the fact that the fraudulent
encashment of the KVPs from Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office
continued during the period from 2.6.1998 to 18.6.1999. I may
refer to the SO Journal of this post office Ex.PW37/118
prepared by Sub Post Master Alwar Singh on 18.6.1999. The
SO Journal is a composite sheet of the KVPs discharged and
payments made. This sheet mentions the KVPs 46CC 855831 to
855860, which were discharged by the Sub Post Master Hari
CC No. 19/2009 Page 64 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
Nagar Ashram. A perusal of these KVPs (collectively exhibited
as Ex.PW33/110) also show that these were discharged on
18.6.1999. Therefore the stamp on the NC32 forms of the date
22.6.1999 makes it clear that the accused K. M. Singh and
Satish Pal Singh (along with Rohtash Kanwar A4, already
convicted) were thickly into this conspiracy even just before the
arrest of accused K. M. Singh which took place on 24.6.1999.
Regarding Rohtash Kanwar, I would only mention that as per
GEQD report, he was the person who had signed as Ramesh
Sharma, purportedly the holder of these KVPs, and had
encashed the aforesaid KVPs. He had pleaded guilty and has
already been convicted.
156. Regarding the allegation of planting of the NC32 forms, I
would say that as per testimony of PW39, the recovery was
made vide memo Ex.PW39/A38 at the disclosure and the
pointing of accused K. M. Singh. This recovery memo bears the
signatures of accused K. M. Singh at point B and recovery was
effected in presence of an independent witness namely M. M.
Sharma an employee of State Bank of India. It is pertinent to
note that all the eight NC32 forms as well as the newspaper has
been signed by accused K. M. Singh with the date 3.7.1999.
Accused has not been able to convince this court as to how his
CC No. 19/2009 Page 65 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
signatures dated 3.7.1999 are available on them. These
signatures support the prosecution case that these were
recovered at the instance of a accused K. M. Singh as a token of
which, he had put his signatures on the recovery memo as well
as on the NC32 forms and the newspaper. Therefore I have no
reason to disbelieve the testimony of Investigating Officer in this
regard. Ld. Public Prosecutor has submitted that had the CBI
wanted to plant a document, they could have even planted the
documents upon him in other three cases in which he was
acquitted by the court. It is submitted that CBI could even have
shown the recovery of these forms from the house or from the
person of accused K. M. Singh. But this was not done as CBI
never resorts to such practices. I agree with the submissions of
Ld. Public Prosecutor. Accordingly, the prosecution has been
able to prove beyond doubt following facts against accused K.
M. Singh:
(1) His disclosure whereby he disclosed the names of other
conspirators namely A1 to A8.
(2) PW6 proved that accused K. M. Singh got three or four
designs of various post offices prepared. Accused K. M. Singh
does not explain as to for what purpose he got prepared these
designs of stamps.
CC No. 19/2009 Page 66 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
(3) Pursuant to disclosure of K. M. Singh, eight NC32 forms
were recovered by I.O.
What is the effect of all these circumstances, would be
discussed by me after discussing the role of Satish Pal Singh
(A7).
Satish Pal Singh (A7)
157. Satish Pal Singh has assailed the sanction order to
prosecute him. I may point out that PW4 Dr. D. Veena Kumari
had accorded sanction under Section 19(1)(C) of Prevention of
Corruption Act for prosecuting accused Satish Pal Singh. It is
submitted that PW4 was not competent to remove him and that
no document has been proved by prosecution to place on record
her competency to accord sanction under Section 19 of
Prevention of Corruption Act. I disagree with this submission.
PW4 has testified that she was posted as Senior Superintendent
of Post Office, New Delhi, South District and accused Satish Pal
Singh was working as Postal Assistant and that she was
competent to remove him from the service. In cross
examination accused Satish Pal Singh has nowhere given the
suggestion that she was not competent to accord sanction under
Section 19 of P. C. Act. Accused Satish Pal Singh has also not
brought any evidence in defence to show as to who was
CC No. 19/2009 Page 67 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
competent to remove him from service or to accord sanction. In
view of clear unrebutted assertion of PW4 that she was
competent to remove him from the service, it has to be accepted
that she was competent to accord sanction.
158. It is argued that the request letter sent by CBI to the
sanctioning authority has not been proved. Therefore it is not
brought on record by the prosecution as to what documents
were sent by CBI to PW4 for her perusal. In absence of this
request letter, it is argued, it has to be presumed that neither
there was any request letter nor any documents were sent and
therefore sanctioning authority accorded the sanction on a draft
of sanction without examining the factual correctness of the
actual documents. I disagree with this submission. In State of
Karnataka Vs Aameer Jan (2007) 11 Supreme Court Cases
273, it is held that “the order granting sanction must be
demonstrative of the facts that there had been proper
application of mind on part of sanctioning authority”. I have
perused this judgement, cited by the accused, and I find that the
sanctioning authority had accorded the sanction simply on a
report and no material collected against the accused was placed
before the sanctioning authority and therefore it was held that
the sanction suffered from non application of mind. On the
CC No. 19/2009 Page 68 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
other hand in the present case, the sanction order Ex.PW4/A.
The sanction order mentions the fact of the case and in para 19
of this order she has specifically stated as to what material was
examined by her before according the sanction. I refer to her
testimony before this court in which she has stated that she had
accorded the sanction after careful examination of the material
including the statements of witness recorded under Section
161 and 164 CrPC and documents collected by the
Investigating Officer, which had been placed before her with
regard to allegations and circumstances of the case. In cross
examination by accused Satish Pal Singh, she testifies that “if
NC32 form bearing the stamp of post office and signatures
of concerned official of postal department is there, it means
that the form has gone through that particular employee of
the postal department. I had seen the documents before
granting sanction though I do not recollect what those
documents were.” This testimony shows that at the time of
according sanction, she was fully conscious of the facts and
documents which are appearing against accused Satish Pal
Singh. Therefore I do not find any defect in the sanction order.
159. The accused Satish Pal Singh has argued that the expert
report Ex.PW15/1 and reasoning Ex.PW15/3 are not available
CC No. 19/2009 Page 69 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
in this file and even true copies are not placed on the judicial
file. It is submitted by Ld. Public Prosecutor that a large
number of KVPs were got encashed from different post offices
with the active collusion of the postal officials. Therefore
initially the handwriting of all the suspects were taken and sent
for comparison to GEQD. When the report came, the cases were
filed post office wise. But there is a common GEQD report
relevant to all the cases. This report has been mentioned in list
of documents of each case including the present one and the
copy of the same was also supplied to each accused. It is
pertinent to note that PW37 proved the aforesaid reports in the
court in this case and accused not only cross examined him on
this report/opinion/reasoning but also examined a handwriting
expert in his defence. Therefore the reports of GEQD had been
the subject matter of this trial and were hotly contested. Though
I agree that it would have been more convenient for the purpose
of trial to place a copy of these reports on this file and it could
have been given a different exhibit number. Even if it is not
done, the said reports stand proved and have to be considered
by this court.
160. Accused has taken the plea that as per the prosecution, the
questioned documents and standard handwritings were sent to
CC No. 19/2009 Page 70 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
GEQD Shimla, whereas the signatures of Dr. R. Sharma (PW37)
show that he had signed the same in Chandigarh on 20.7.2001.
It is submitted that it is nowhere explained as to how these
documents, which were sent to Shimla, had reached
Chandigarh. Ld. Public Prosecutor submits that the office of
GEQD CFI is situated in Shimla and its one branch is situated in
Chandigarh and court can take judicial notice of this fact. I
have perused the report and I find that the report Ex.PW15/1 is
prepared on the letterhead of GEQD, Central Forensic Institute,
Government of India, Shimla but it had been signed by PW37 at
Chandigarh. I take judicial notice of this fact that the branch
office of GEQD, Shimla is situated at Chandigarh. Here the
question is not as to at which office the documents were
examined. The question before this court is that as to whether
the opinion of prosecution expert is correct or not.
161. As discussed above it stands proved that the 8 NC32 forms
were recovered from the car of accused K. M. Singh (A1) at his
instance and pursuant to his disclosure. As per charge sheet, in
furtherance of criminal conspiracy, accused K. M. Singh (A1)
directed accused Satish Pal Singh that accused Rohtash Kanwar
would reach Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office for encashment of
KVPs. Accused Satish Pal Singh informed him that postmaster
CC No. 19/2009 Page 71 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
Alwar Singh was going for training to Saharanpur and therefore
he would send Rohtash Kanwar on the same day. Actually as
per the direction of accused K. M. Singh (A1), accused Rohtash
Kanwar went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office and presented
the stolen/forged KVPs to the tune of Rs.1 lac for encashment.
Accused Alwar Singh on seeing the KVPs asked accused Satish
Pal Singh to send NC32 forms to the issuing post office and
verify the particulars and himself went on training to
Saharanpur. It is alleged that accused Satish Pal Singh in
furtherance of criminal conspiracy wrote “for transfer” on 8
NC32 forms and also put the stamp of Hari Nagar Ashram
Post Office and gave them to accused K. M. Singh (A1) for
getting the verification forged. These NC32 forms were
recovered from the car of accused K. M. Singh (A1) on his
pointing out.
162. These 8 NC32 forms (collectively exhibited as
Ex.PW39/A44) were wrapped in a newspapers Ex.PW39/A45
and were placed under the mattress beneath the driving seat of
the blue colour Zen Maruti car at the instance of accused K. M.
Singh (A1) vide memo Ex.PW39/A38. On these NC32 forms,
the words “for transfer” are written in red pen and beneath it
there are initials in red pen. This hand writing and initial is at
CC No. 19/2009 Page 72 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
Q1871, Q1876, Q1881, Q1886, Q1894, Q1890, Q1903 and
Q1898. On each of the forms, the round stamp of Hari Nagar
Ashram Post Office is affixed and the stamp of sub postmaster
with an initial is also fixed. On the initials of the sub postmaster
a date 22.6.1999 is written. In the round stamp also the date
22.6.1999 is visible. As per the report of hand writing expert
Ex.PW15/A (on page 28), it is written that above stated noted
questioned writings have been written by the same person
whose specimen hand writing is found on S515, S536 to S539
and S541 to S545. These specimen hand writings are
Ex.PW39/A3 (D124) and pertains to accused Satish Pal Singh
and the same have been taken in presence of an independent
witness namely Sh. Gyanesh Kumar Jain. (examined by this
court under Section 311 CrPC)
163. As per charge sheet, in his disclosure statement dated
27.6.1999 accused K. M. Singh (A1) stated that he had
purchased one Maruti Car No. DL 3CF 0838 from one Tyagi of
Uttam Nagar and that the vehicle has not been transferred in his
name and that this vehicle met with an accident and was under
repair in a workshop called Pappu Motors. In this disclosure
statement, he has also disclosed the name of Satish Pal Singh.
In his disclosure statement dated 3.6.1999, he disclosed that
CC No. 19/2009 Page 73 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
accused Satish Pal Singh handed over to him NC32 forms and
he kept the same under the mattress beneath the driving seat of
blue colour Maruti Zen car. At his instance, the said NC32
forms were taken out from the said vehicle. As per prosecution
case form 32 are required when KVPs are to be transferred from
one post office to another post office. As per Rule 37(1) of Post
Office Saving Bank Manual Volume II, “when an application for
transfer of a certificate in the prescribed form (NC32) is
received in an office for registration either direct or through the
office to which transfer is desired, the postmaster of the office
of registration must satisfy himself that certificate sought to be
transferred actually stands in applicant's name.......”. Therefore
it is alleged that accused Satish Pal singh facilitated and acted in
conspiracy with accused K. M. Singh (A1) by handing him over
the blank form 32 after writing “for transfer” and putting his
initials beneath it. It is pertinent to note that these 8 NC32
forms bear the stamp of sub postmaster and his initials as well
as a stamp of Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office bearing the date
22.6.1999. The remaining columns which should contain
particulars of KVPs etc. are blank.
164. Now I take up the report of GEQD as well as the opinion
of the expert witness namely DW1 Syed Faizal Huda examined
CC No. 19/2009 Page 74 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
by accused Satish Pal Singh. The defence witness has proved
his opinion as Ex.DW1/A. He proved the enlarged photographs
of the disputed signatures and specimen signatures as
Ex.DW1/B. He has opined that the disputed writing and the
signatures and the specimen writing/signatures (of accused
Satish Pal Singh) have been written by different persons. I have
perused his opinion. He has observed that specimen signatures
have been written fluently in a graceful manner and show
superior degree of penmanship. Similarly he has considered the
alignment, slant and natural variations and the proportion of
letters including the spacing between the letters. I disagree with
his opinion on the aforesaid points because perusal of the
specimen hand writing/signatures and the disputed hand
writing/signatures shows equal degree of penmanship and I do
not find any difference in alignment, slant, natural variations
and proportions of the letters. Now I take up his opinion on
individual characteristics, which is reproduced as under :
“INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTICS OF WRITINGS (for Transfer): Formation of individual letters of the disputed writings shows fundamental differences with the formation of individual letters of specimen writings in the following manner:a) Letter “f”: In word “for”, the beginning stroke is extended and the formation of
CC No. 19/2009 Page 75 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
triangular loop is prominent in specimen writing (e.g. S515, S536) but not in disputed writings (Q1881, Q1886), demonstrated at point a on the enlarged photographs.In word “four” letter “f” makes rounded top in disputed writings (Q1898, Q1903) whereas loop formation in specimen (S536, S515, S537) writings and suggest the dissimilarities of individual habits, demonstrated at point a on the enlarged photographs.In word “transfer” letter “f” is tended towards the left side in disputed writings (Q1890, Q1894) whereas it is vertically placed to tend towards the right side in specimen writings (S538, S522) demonstrated at point a on the enlarged photographs.b) Letter “o”: It is written in fully developed manner and style of formation in specimen writings (e.g. S515, S536) but not in disputed writings (e.g. Q1890, Q1894), demonstrated at point b on the enlarged photographs.c) Letters “u, r”: in word “four” it is vertically placed in specimen writings (S538, S522) but tended towards the left side in disputed writings (Q1898, Q1903), demonstrated at point c on the enlarged photographs.d) Letter “T”: The bar of letter “T” is more rounded in style in disputed writings (Q1890, q1894) as compared to the specimen writings, demonstrated at point d on the enlarged photographs.e) See the presence of additional cursive stroke in letters “r, a, n, and s” of word “Transfer” in specimen writings (S538, S522) which is not prominent in the disputed writings
CC No. 19/2009 Page 76 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
(Q1898, Q1903), demonstrated at point e on the enlarged photographs.f) Terminal stroke of letter “r” of word “Transfer” goes upwardly in disputed writings (e.g. Q1871, Q1876) but horizontally in specimen writings (e.g. S515, S542) and suggest the different individual habits of the writers.”
165. Now I reproduce the relevant GEQD opinion Ex.PW15/3
in this regard as under :
“My opinion that the writings in the enclosed portions stamped and marked Q1871, Q1876, Q1881, Q1886, Q1890, Q1894, Q1898, Q1903; S515, S536 to S539 and S541 to S545 have been written by one and the same person, is based upon the cumulative considerations of the similarities both in the general and individual writing habits occurring in them. Inter se comparison of the standard writings reveals that they are freely written, show natural variations and have inter consistency among themselves. The questioned writings also exhibit these qualities similarly. They also agree in the general writing habits of movement, skill, speed, alignment, spacing, relative size and proportion of the letters and their combination, nature of commencing and terminal stroke, simplification etc. Both questioned and standard writings also agree in the minute and inconspicuous details of formation of letters and their combinations, some of such similarities in the individual writing habits are: manner of execution of letter 'f' with the nature of start; nature and location
CC No. 19/2009 Page 77 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
of upper body part as well as nature and location of downward stroke with similar variation; nature and manner of linking letters 'o' and 'r', execution of letter 'T' with the nature and location of horizontal and vertical stroke; nature and location of next succeeding character and manner of connecting with next succeeding character with similar variation observed to be similar with similar variation; manner of execution of letter 's' with the nature and location of upper and lower body part and manner of joining its terminal stroke with letter 'f'; nature and location of the commencement, body part as well as nature and location of finish in the execution of last character were also observed to be similar variation int he questioned and standard. All the significant features as occurring in the questioned writings are found similar exemplified at one or the other place in the standard writings. There is no divergence between questioned and standard writings and there is no sign of imitation in the production of the questioned writings. The above discussed similarities in the writing habits between the questioned and standard writings are significant and sufficient and will not accidentally coincide in writings of two different persons and when considered collectively lead me to the aforesaid opinion of common authorship.”
166. With a view to assess the aforesaid opinion, I have
perused the enlarged photographs of the questioned and
CC No. 19/2009 Page 78 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
disputed hand writings filed by DW1 in the court and which are
exhibited as Ex.DW1/B. On seeing these enlarged photographs,
there cannot be two opinions that the same have been written
by one and the same person. The formations of 'f', 'r', 'T', 's' are
similar and I have no doubt about the accuracy of the opinion
given by the PW37 Dr. R. Sharma. Accordingly the opinion of
the defence expert witness has to be rejected. I would like to
reproduce the cross examination of PW37 by Ld. Counsel of
accused Satish Pal Singh as under :
“Q. I draw your attention to questioned document no. 1898 and 1903, in which starting “f” is different from starting “f” in questioned writing 1890, 1894. Is it correct?Ans. It is correct. Vol. the same habit of writing letter “f” is also appearing in specimen writings.Q. Is it correct that in view of the aforesaid difference in letter “f”, it would be correct to say that both were written by two persons?Ans. It is correct.Q. Do you find difference of alignment between questioned as well as specimen writings?Ans. I do not find any difference.Q. I suggest that in question writing no. 1898, there is ascending alignment, whereas the same is not in specimen writing. What do you want to say?Ans. It is correct that there is ascending alignment in questioned writing no. 1898. I want to explain that in other questioned
CC No. 19/2009 Page 79 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
writings, the alignments vary with each other and the same were reflected in specimen writings.Q. I suggest to you that in all questioned writings, there is ascending alignment with small variation but in all specimen writings the alignment is straight?Ans. It is correct that in question writing there is ascending alignments with variations but in all specimen writing the alignment is not precisely straight there is a variation.Q. Do you find backward slant in all questioned writing whereas forward slant in specimen writing, this is major difference between two?Ans. It is correct.Q. Do you find backward slant in starting letter “F” and “T” Q. 1894 and Q.1886?Ans. It is correct.Q. Is it correct that there is difference in spacing in as much as it is more in between the words “for” and “transferred” in specimen writing, whereas less in questioned writing Q1871, Q1876, Q1881, Q1886 and Q1894?Ans. It is incorrect. The spacing between the words “for” and “transferred” were similarly found in the specimen writings. It is wrong to suggest that I am denying the facts.Q. Did you notice any difference in starting letter “F” with triangular loop at the bottom in between the specimen writing but not in questioned writing?Ans. I do not find as the same is appearing in specimen with natural variations.Q. Do you find in the terminal stroke of letter “r” of word transfer, which goes upwardly
CC No. 19/2009 Page 80 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
in the questioned writing but horizontally in the specimen writing?Ans. No.Q. Do you find letter “T” of word “transfer” is more curved in style in questioned writing i.e. Questioned Q1871, Q1881, Q1886 and Q1894, whereas less curved in style in specimen?Ans. No.Q. I put it to you that the similarities as mentioned and pointed out in your report is only pictorial resemblance in the outward form of letters?Ans. The similarities mentioned in my reports are based on the scientific examination and comparison of questioned and specimen.”
167. This part of cross examination shows that there is no
substance in the plea of the accused that his specimen
handwritings do not tally with the questioned handwriting. I
further point out that the report of defence expert Ex.DW1/A
has opined that the formation of the letters in the disputed
writing is different from the specimen writings. I totally
disagree with this opinion because perusal of the specimen and
disputed handwriting would show the striking similarities
between the two and therefore I fully agree with the report
given by PW37 that the handwriting on these NC32 forms is
that of accused Satish Pal Singh.
CC No. 19/2009 Page 81 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
The inference of 8 NC32 forms recovered at the instance of
K. M. Singh (A1)
I have already held that eight NC32 forms bearing the
writing “for transfer” and signatures of Satish Pal Singh (A2),
the postal assistant, were found at the instance of accused K. M.
Singh. These forms bear the date stamp having the date
22.6.1999. I have already mentioned that accused K. M. Singh
was arrested on 24.6.1999. As arleady discussed, the last bunch
of KVPs were fraudulently encashed on 18.6.1999. I have
already discussed that the NC32 forms is sent by a post office to
the issuing post office, mentioning all the particulars of the
KVPs, which have been presented to such post office. This is
done for the purpose of verification of the KVPs by the issuing
post office. The NC32 forms collectively exhibited as
Ex.PW39/A44 are blank in all respect except the signatures of
some Ashok Gupta and Sudha Gupta and the signatures of
Satish Pal Singh with the endorsement “for transfer” and the
stamp of Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office bearing the date
22.6.1999 along with the stamps and initials of Sub Post Master.
Accused Satish Pal Singh has not been able to explain as to why
the endorsement “for transfer” in his hand along with the date
stamp are available on these forms. The only inference is that
CC No. 19/2009 Page 82 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
these forms were to be used for the purpose of filling the
particulars of stolen KVPs and putting the fake stamps of other
post offices on the same and thereafter getting the same
encashed from the Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office. I may point
out that PW6 Sunil Krishan Nagar has testified that accused K.
M. Singh has come to his shop and got various designs of
various post offices prepared. This proves that accused K. M.
Singh and Satish Pal Singh were in conspiracy with each other
in commission of this type of offences. It needs to be stressed
that the aforesaid facts have to be seen in overall backdrop of
the circumstances in this case. The stolen KVPs are filled with
the forged particulars. The offenders are impersonating as
holders of the KVPs and getting the same encashed from the
post offices. For this purpose they are adopting two types of
methods. First they are preparing fake identity slips purported
to have been issued by the post office from where the KVPs were
shown to have been purchased and on the basis of such identity
slips, the postal officials encashed those KVPs. Second method
is to prepare fake NC32 forms required for transfer of KVPs from
one post office to another post office. In this case fake identity
slips were prepared to get the KVPs encashed. The another
method of getting fake NC32 forms was under the way just
CC No. 19/2009 Page 83 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
before the arrest of accused K. M. Singh. Although this is a very
small fact but it goes far away backwards. This exposes the
entire story as to how all the KVPs were encashed fraudulently
by active involvement of postal official namely Satish Pal Singh.
It proves that accused K. M. Singh was one of the active
conspirators in the conspiracy which involved, apart from the
other co accused persons, the postal officials including Satish
Pal Singh.
Sohan Pal Sharma (A2)
168. It is argued by Sh. Kedar Yadav, Ld. Defence Counsel that
the specimen hand writing of accused Sohan Pal Sharma was
taken by the Investigating Officer without the permission of the
Magistrate and therefore the same is not admissible in evidence
against him. I disagree with his submissions. There were
divergent views of our own High Court on this issue but now in
Bhupender Singh Vs. State, the full Bench of Delhi High Court
consisting Hon'ble Chief Justice Deepak Mishra, Mr. Justice Anil
Kumar and Mr. Justice Sanjiv Khanna, while deciding Criminal
Appeal No. 1005/2008 (vide order dated 30.09.2011) upheld
the view taken by the single judge of Hon'ble High Court of
Delhi in Sunil Kumar @ Sonu Vs. State of NCT of Delhi
(Criminal Appeal No. 446 of 2005 decided on 25.3.2010) and
CC No. 19/2009 Page 84 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
rejected the ratio of the decision of the Division Bench in
Satyawan Vs. State (Criminal Appeal No. 34/2001 decided on
9.7.2009). In Satyawan Vs State, the Division Bench of Hon'ble
High Court had held that taking specimen writing without the
order of the court is not legal and would not be admissible in
evidence against accused. In Bhupender Singh Vs. State the
full Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi clearly held that the
view expressed in the decisions namely Satyawan Vs State is
not the correct view. Hence it is clear that the specimen hand
writing can be taken from an accused by the Investigating
Officer and same would be admissible in evidence even if such
specimen hand writing had been taken by the Investigating
Officer without permission of the Magistrate. Further, there is
nothing on record to show that specimen handwriting of
accused Sohan Pal Sharma was taken under coercion, threat or
pressure. Therefore, the specimen handwriting has been given
by the accused voluntarily.
169. Ld. Defence Counsel argues that it would be highly unsafe to
convict a person solely on the basis of the opinion of the handwriting
expert. He has referred to the following judgments in his support:
1. Ishawari Prasad V. Mohd. Isa, AIR 1963 SC 1728.
2. Sashi Kumar v. Subodh Kumar, AIR 1964 SC 529.
CC No. 19/2009 Page 85 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
3. State of Gujarat Vs Vinaya Chandra Chhota Lal Patni AIR 778,
1967 SCR(1) 249.
4. Balakrishna Das V. Radha Devi AIR 1989 AII 133.
5. State of Maharashtra V. Sukhdeo Singh AIR 1992 SC 2100
(2116): (1992) 3 SCJ 330.
6. State of U.P. V. Charles Gurmukh Sobhraj, CriLJ 3844: (1996) 9
SCC 472:1996 SCC 1065.
7. State of Himachal Pradesh Vs Jai Lal & Ors. AIR 1999 SC 3318,
199(2) ALD Cri 855.
8. Piara Singh Vs. Jagtar Singh AIR 1987 Punj 93.
9. Vandavasi Karthikeya alias Krishnamuthry v.S. Kamalamma AIR
1994 AP 102 at 114.
10.Ram Chandra and Anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1957 SC
381, 1957 CriL.J. 559
11.Kanchan Singh v.State of Guj. AIR 1979 SC 1011: 1979 CriLJ 889.
12.Magan Behari Lal v. State of Pb. AIR 1977SC 1091: 1977 CriLJ
711.
On the other hand, Ld. Public Prosecutor has referred to Jaipal Vs
State and Rajender Vs State and submitted that handwriting expert's
report is enough to connect a person with the crime. I have considered the
submissions. I am of the opinion that an expert's opinion is an evidence in
itself. Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act lays down that when the court has
to form an opinion as to the identity of handwriting or finger impressions,
CC No. 19/2009 Page 86 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
the opinions upon that point of the persons expert in that science are
relevant facts. If the two handwritings match with each other, this itself
is an evidence as per the the Indian Evidence Act. To say it differently, the
matching of two handwritings is itself a substantial evidence u/s 45 of
Indian Evidence Act and the opinion of the handwriting expert is sought
only to facilitate the court to form an opinion on this point. Therefore, to
say that conviction can be or cannot be based solely upon the report of
handwriting expert would be misleading. The appropriate interpretation of
Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act is that court is competent to form its own
opinion on the point of identity of handwriting and for that purpose the
court may call for the report of a handwriting expert. Therefore, the
relevant fact before this court is the matching or non matching of the
handwriting. If the handwritings match there cannot be any hitch in
convicting the accused even if further corroborative evidence is not
available. I fully agree with the Ld. Public Prosecutor and quote from the
judgment dated 05.07.2011 passed by the Division Bench of Hon'ble Mr.
Justice S.Ravindra Bhatt and Hon'b le Mr. Justice G.P. Mittal in Jaipal Vs
State Criminal Appeal No. 137/98 and Rajendra Vs State Criminal
Appeal No. 181/98 as under:
“It is true that except the handwriting Expert's report Ext.PW4/A there is no corroboration that the ransom letter Ext.PW12/A was in the handwriting of Appellant Jaipal. The question was dealt in detail by the Supreme Court in Murari Lal v. State of M.P., AIR 1980 SC 531. The court observed that handwriting expert is not an
CC No. 19/2009 Page 87 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
accomplice and there is no justification for condemning his opinion evidence. It was held that if the Court is convinced from the report of an expert that the questioned handwriting was of the accused, there is no difficulty in relying upon the expert's opinion without any corroboration.”
It is pertinent to note that Hon'ble High Court had relied upon
Murari Lal v. State of M.P., AIR 1980 SC 531 wherein Hon'ble Supreme
Court held that there was no rule of law nor any rule of prudence that the
evidence of handwriting expert must not be acted upon, unless substantially
corroborated.
170. In view of the above stated law, I am of the opinion that when
a case is being pressed by the prosecution solely on the basis of
handwriting expert, the court should be very cautious and the reasons
for the expert opinion must be carefully examined. In case where
reasons for opinion are convincing and there is no reliable evidence
throwing a doubt upon it, the testimony of handwriting expert may
be accepted.
171. It is further argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that there is no
evidence that he has been benefited from this crime and that
prosecution has been unable to prove any motive for
commission of these offences. I do not find any substance in
these submissions. If there is evidence that an accused has been
CC No. 19/2009 Page 88 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
a part of conspiracy wherein forged KVPs had been encashed,
the inescapable consequence would be that such accused has
done so with a view to get wrongful gain to himself or wrongful
loss to the government. Ld. Defence Counsel argues that
neither any ingredient of section 467 IPC has been proved nor
any ingredient of Section 468 IPC has been proved. It is argued
that cheating is a necessary ingredient of the offences of forgery
and since prosecution has been unable to prove that accused has
cheated anyone, he cannot be convicted u/s 467 & 468 IPC. I
disagree with his submissions. Forging the handwritten portion
of KVPs in a large number of such KVPS itself shows that the
forgery has been done with an intention to cheat the
Government/Postal Authorities.
172. Ld. PP submits that initially only one case was registered
in which the specimen signatures of the accused persons were
taken. Later on, these cases were saggregated in four, post
office wise. Therefore, the specimen signatures are relevant to
each case of these four connected cases.
173. I am of the opinion that there is no law which prohibits
the prosecution from taking any material of one case and
putting the same in another case. If a material of one case also
forms a piece of evidence against an accused in another case,
CC No. 19/2009 Page 89 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
the same may be proved by the prosecution in other cases also.
174. Ld. Defence Counsel has drawn my attention to the
specimen signatures Ext.PW15/A1 and submits that initially the
Investigating Officer has written the name of Satish Pal Singh
and thereafter he wrote Sohan Pal Sharma after cutting the
name of Satish Pal Singh. I have seen the specimen signatures.
On seeing the sheet Ext.PW15/A1, it is clear that an
inadvertent mistake has been corrected. It bears the signatures
of Sohan Pal Singh at point A. It is pertinent to note that on
further sheets Ext.PW15/A2 to Ext.PW15/A158, the signatures
of Sohan Pal Sharma are present at point A of each sheet and
perusal of the same would show that the signatures at point A
on Ext.PW15/A1 and the other sheets are of the same person.
Accused has nowhere shown or proved that the signatures on
the specimen sheets at point A do not pertain to him. I point
out that as per prosecution case these specimen signatures were
taken in the presence of Gyanesh Kumar Jain. This witness was
examined by me u/s 311 CrPC as a court witness and he had
proved his signatures at point B on each sheet. In these
circumstances, I am of the opinion that prosecution has proved
beyond doubt that the specimen handwriting of Sohan Pal
Sharma was taken on these sheets. Even if there is some cutting
CC No. 19/2009 Page 90 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
on one sheet Ext.PW15/A1, the same is inadvertent and is a
correction of a mistake. Hence, no benefit of it can be given to
the accused.
175. As per the prosecution case, accused K. M. Singh was
arrested on 24.6.1999 and he made a disclosure in which he
made disclosure of the role of Sohan Pal Sharma. He made
disclosure statements on 24.6.1999 and 27.6.1999. In these
disclosure statements, he disclosed the name of Sohan Pal
Sharma as being active participant in the conspiracy. Accused
Sohan Pal Sharma was arrested on 2.7.1999 and therefore his
disclosure statement was recorded on 6.7.1999. In his
disclosure statement he disclosed about his involvement in the
conspiracy and having encahsed the KVPs. He specially
disclosed about the encashing of various KVPs. As per
prosecution case, he impersonated as Chaudhary Harpal Singh
holder of 125 KVPs bearing no. 28CC982151 to 28CC982175
and 35BB922201 to 35BB922300 amounting to Rs.
12,97,000/ and got the aforesaid payment. It is alleged that he
had fraudulently signed as Chaudhary Harpal Singh on these
KVPs.
176. As per the prosecution case the aforesaid writings on the
body part and the signatures of Harpal on these questioned
CC No. 19/2009 Page 91 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
documents tally with the hand writings of the person, who has
S1 to S158, which are the specimen hand writings of accused
Sohan Pal Sharma.
177. On 125 KVPs bearing no. 28CC982151 to 28CC982175
and 35BB922201 to 35BB922300 has the signatures of one
Harpal Singh signifying the receipt of the encashed amount. As
per prosecution case the specimen signatures as Harpal Singh of
accused Sohan Pal Sharma were taken on the sheets S74 to
S83 (Ex.PW15/A74 to Ex.PW15/A83). Accused Sohan Pal
Singh has given these specimen hand writing by writing “Harpal
Singh” in Hindi language. As per the expert's report
Ex.PW15/3 (Page 11, which is the “reasons” for the opinion),
the expert has given the opinion, relevant portion of which is as
under : “Inter se comparison of the standard writings reveals that they are freely written, show
natural variations and have inter consistency among themselves. The questioned writings also
exhibit these qualities similarly. They also agree in the general writing habits of movement, skill,
speed, alignment, spacing, relative size and proportion of the letters and their combination,
nature of commencing and terminal stroke, simplification etc.
Both questioned and standard writings also agree in the minute and inconspicuous details
of formation of letters and their combination, some of such similarities in the individual writing
habits are: manner of execution of Hindi letter 'ra' with the nature and location of its start nature
and location of its body curvature with the formation loop at the middle and direction of finish;
relative size ,nature and location of the vowel sign of 'Aakar'; commencement of letter 'ma',
nature and location of its diagonal stroke and manner of its joining with the second vertical staff
and direction of finish; movement in the execution of the vowel sign of 'ikar', 'okar', 'chandra
CC No. 19/2009 Page 92 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
bindu' etc with similar variation; executi9on of letter 'sa', nature and location of its body part and
finish; nature and start of letter 'ha'.........
There is no divergence between questioned and standard writings and there is no sign of
imitation in the production of the questioned writings. The above discussed similarities in the
writing habits between the questioned and standard writings are significant and sufficient and
will not accidentally coincide in writings of two different persons and when considered
collectively lead me to the aforesaid opinion of common authorship”.
178. After perusing the specimen and questioned handwritings,
I fully agree with this report and the reasoning of the expert
witness PW37. Thus prosecution has proved that accused
Sohan Pal Singh not only impersonated as Harpal Singh (a fake
holder of KVPs) and thereby cheated the postal department but
has also received the money after encashing these KVPs because
he has signed on the KVPs as the recipient of the encashed
amount.
Laxman Prasad @ Thakur (A3)
179. As per charge sheet during the period 2.6.1998 to
12.6.1998, he had impersonated as Hari Prasad holder of 527
KVPs bearing no. 45CC 163601 to 163700, 45CC 163321 to
163400, 35BB 936301 to 936400, 35BB 936601 to 936700,
31BB 007761 to 007800, 28CC 570301 to 570336, 28CC
970338 to 970348, 28CC 982031 to 982040, 28CC 970351 to
970400 total amounting to Rs.64,96,100/ and encashed the
same on various dates. It is stated that as per the report of
CC No. 19/2009 Page 93 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
GEQD, the signatures of the recipient of the KVPs amout as Hari
Prasad has been forged by accused Laxman Prasad. I may point
out that specimen hand writings/signatures were taken by the
Investigating Officer on the sheets from S546 to S619.
However his specimen signatures as Hari Prasad are taken from
S552 to S565.
180. As per the GEQD report Ex.PW15/1, the hand writing
vide which the amount has been written in numerals as well as
in words in the column of “RECEIPT OF DISCHARGE” and the
signatures of Hari Prasad beneath it as recipient of the
amount/holder of KVPs tallies with the specimen hand writings
and signatures of accused Laxman Prasad. This opinion has
been given on page 1 to 4 of the report Ex.PW15/1. The
reasoning for the opinion as appearing in Ex.PW15/3 at page 1,
2 and 3, which is reproduced as under : (the relevant portion)
“Inter se comparison of the standard writings and signatures reveals that they are freely written, show natural variations and have inter consistency among themselves. The questioned writings and signatures also exhibit these qualities similarly. They also agree in the general writing habits of movement which is wrist predominant with some action of forearm, skill, speed, alignment, spacing, relative size and proportion of the letters and their combination, nature of commencing and
CC No. 19/2009 Page 94 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
terminal stroke, simplification, movement of strokes in the formation of letter and signatures etc. Both questioned and standard writings and signatures also agree in the minute and inconspicuous details of formation of letters and their combinations, some of such similarities in the individual writing habits are: manner of execution of letter 'S' with the nature and location of its start, nature and location of upper and lower body part and manner of its joining with the succeeding letter 'i', nature and start of letter 'e', nature and location of its eye let and direction of finish; commencement of letter 'E', nature and location of its upper and lower body curvature and manner of its joining with the succeeding letter 'i'; nature and location of idot ; combination of letter 'g ' h ' and 't' in the letter 'eight'; manner of execution of letter 'n' with the nature and location of its body part and finish; combination of letter 't' and 'h' 'u' and 's' in the word 'thousand', start of letter 'o' with the nature of its body part and finish; simplified execution of letter 'd' nature and location of its downward vertical staff and finish' bifurcation in the execution of letter 'r'; combination of letter 'o' 'n' 'I' 'y' in the word 'only'; start o letter 'N' with the nature of its diagonal stroke and manner of its joining with second vertical staff and direction of finish; nature and location of the vertical and horizontal stroke in the execution of letter 'T'; execution of letter 'H' with the nature and location of its horizontal stroke as well as manner of its joining to the vertical staff and direction of finish; nature and location in the formation of body part of letter 'p' ; start of letter 'a' nature and location of it oval part and
CC No. 19/2009 Page 95 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
manner of its joining to the succeeding letter; manner of execution of commonly occurring figures such as: 'I' '4' '6' '9' and combination of figures '00' & '29' are observed similar in the questioned and standard. All the significant features as occurring in the questioned writings and signatures are found similar exemplified at one or the other place in the standard writings and signatures. There is no divergence between questioned and standard writings & signatures. There is no sign of imitation in the production of the questioned writings and signatures. The above discussed similarities in the writing habits between the questioned and standard writings and signatures are significant and sufficient and will not accidentally coincide in writings of two different persons and when considered collectively lead me to the aforesaid opinion of common authorship.”
181. On the other hand, accused has examined his hand writing
expert, who has given a different opinion and has stated in his
report Ex.DW1/C that the question hand writings/signatures
and the specimen hand writings have been written by two
different writers. He selected disputed writing and signatures
randomly.
In this report, the defence expert has selected Q2405,
Q2410, Q2415, Q2420, Q2425, Q5615, Q5619, Q5623,
Q11633, Q11636, Q11641, Q11645, Q11649 which are the
disputed hand writings vide which the amount encahsed on
CC No. 19/2009 Page 96 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
discharge of KVP has been written in numerals as well as in
words. He randomly selected disputed signatures Q2407,
Q2411, Q2416, Q2421, Q2426, Q5616, Q5620, Q5624,
Q11634, Q11637, Q11642, Q11646 and Q11650.
Photographs of the above stated question hand writings and
signatures were taken and endorsed. As per this report, the
specimen signatures show a better degree of penmanship as
compared with that of the disputed signatures. Further it is
opined that the disputed signatures have been written by a
medium skilled writer and these signatures do not show well
defined motion and fluency in the manner of execution and that
curvatures of stoke are not well formed and even the individual
letters are different in their curves and joining and placing of
strokes on the point of signatures. The expert witness has
further opined as under :
“COMPARISON OF SIGNATURES (H.PRASAD):A comparison of class and individual characteristic in disputed and specimen signatures is as under:“1) MOVEMENT: The disputed signatures (Q2407, Q2411) have been written with advance finger movement due to lower order of writing skill, unsymmetrical letter formation and ill defined connections between the letters. But specimen signatures (e.g. S551, S552)
CC No. 19/2009 Page 97 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
have been written with wrist cum forearm movement due to fair degree of writing speed, angular connection, well defined curves and smooth connections of the letters.2) LINE QUALITY: Line quality is smooth, flowing and fluent in specimen signatures (e.g. S555, S556) due to continuity in movement and well graded strokes but on the other hand disputed signatures (e.g. Q11642, Q11646) show lower order of line quality in comparison to the specimen signatures and this is due to the reason of less fluency and rhythm of the stokes of letters and their curvatures.3) SPEED: The speed is rapid order in specimen signatures (e.g. S553, S554) due to well defined curves and angle of the strokes of the letters but it is slow to medium order in disputed signatures (e.g. Q5620, Q5624) due to halting formation of the letters and their strokes as well as connection of the letters in the manner of execution.4) SKILL: The skill observed in disputed signatures (e.g. Q11646, Q11650) is of comparatively inferior order than that of the specimen signatures (e.g. S556, S557) and writings because no writer can show a better degree of penmanship than one is actually possess.5) STYLE: Both specimen (e.g. S553, S554) and disputed signatures (e.g. Q11642, Q11646) shows angular and rounded style but it is laboured in disputed signatures and flying and speedy in specimen signatures.6) AHDING, PEN PRESSURE AND PEN POSITION: The correct examination of these factors is not possible in photocopies and ball pen writings. This can be examined only in
CC No. 19/2009 Page 98 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
fountain pen writing because in those writing there is split of nib.7) NATURAL VARIATIONS: Disputed signatures (e.g. Q11642, Q11646) shows unnatural variations with the specimen signatures (e.g. S553, S554) due to the presence of inconsistencies in the formation of letters. Only specimen signatures show natural variations interse in the form of slight divergences in curves, loops, angles and initial and terminal strokes of the letters.8) SIZE AND PROPORTIONS OF LETTERS: The size and proportion of the letters are not similar in their relative proportions in disputed signatures (e.g. Q2407, Q2411) when they are compared with the specimen signatures (e.g. S556, S557) due to the presence of different height and width of the letters. e.g. The height of the letters such as “H” and “P” is more in disputed signatures but less in specimen signatures.9) DISGUISE: There is no evidence of disguise in disputed and specimen signatures.10) COORDINATION OF WRITING MUSCLES: There is a perfect coordination in writing muscles in specimen signatures (e.g. S556, S557) due to wrist cum forearm movement of the hand. But it is not perfect in disputed signatures (e.g. Q2407, Q2411) due to slow to medium order of speed and unsymmetrical stokes formation between the letters.11) PEN SCOPE: Due to the presence of advance finger movement in disputed signatures (Q2407, Q2411) the pen scope is limited. But it is much extended in specimen signatures (e.g. S553, S554) due to the
CC No. 19/2009 Page 99 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
presence of wrist cum forearm movement of the hand.INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTICS OF SIGNATURES (H. PRASAD): Formation of individual letters of the disputed signatures shows fundamental differences with the formation of individual letters of specimen signatures in the following manner:a) Letter “H”: The manner and execution of letter “H” is different in disputed and specimen signatures. It is written in more fluency, rhythm and continuous manner in specimen signatures (e.g. S553, S554) whereas in disputed signatures (Q2407, Q2411) the deposition of the ink is discontinuous at unusual places in the execution of this letter which suggest the different writing habits of different persons, demonstrated at point a on the enlarged photographs.The first and second vertical staff and their joining with the middle connecting stroke are similarly executed in well defined manner in specimen signatures but not in disputed signatures due to different pen operation and uneven density of ink. It is written in three pen operation in specimen signatures but more than three in disputed signatures.b) Letter “p”: The design and manner of execution of letter “p” is different in disputed and specimen signatures. The initial stroke of the body loop is extended and makes joining with the middle connecting strokes of letter “H” in most of the disputed signatures (e.g. Q11642, Q11646) whereas the initial stroke of the body loop is short and makes joining mostly with the second vertical staff of letter
CC No. 19/2009 Page 100 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
“H” in specimen signatures (e.g. S553, S554), demonstrated at point b on the enlarged photographs.c) Letter “r”: Formation of letter “r” is different in disputed and specimen signatures. The ink is uniform and written in fully developed manner and style of formation in specimen signatures (e.g. S553, S554) whereas the deposition of the ink is more and slowly executed due to different pen operation employed by the writer in disputed signatures (e.g. Q11642, Q11646), demonstrated at point c on the enlarged photographs.d) Letter “a”: The design and style of formation of letter “a” is different in disputed and specimen signatures. The body oval is circular to elliptical in shape in specimen signatures (e.g. S553, S554) whereas mostly elliptical in shape in disputed signatures (e.g. Q11642, Q11646), demonstrated at point d on the enlarged photographs.e) Letter “s”: The execution of letter “s” is different in disputed and specimen signatures. The body stroke is written in widely spread manner in specimen signatures (e.g. S556, S557) than that of the disputed signatures (e.g. Q11646, Q11650) and suggests the dissimilarities of individual habits, demonstrated at point e on the enlarged photographs.f) 2 nd Letter “a” : The manner of execution of letter “a” is different in disputed and specimen signatures. The body oval is open as well as closed and makes loop in disputed signatures (Q2407, Q2411) whereas it is mostly closed and does not make any loop in specimen signatures (e.g. S553, S554),
CC No. 19/2009 Page 101 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
demonstrated at point f on the enlarged photographs.g) Letter “d”: Formation of letter “d” is different in disputed and specimen signatures. The body oval, formation of loop and the finishing of its downward stroke is similarly executed in well defined manner in specimen signatures (e.g. S553, S554) due to uniform density of ink but not in disputed signatures (e.g. Q11642, Q11646) due to different pen operation, uneven density of ink and movement of the writer, demonstrated at point g on the enlarged photographs.h) Embellishment Stroke: The variation in the width of stroke, its starting and finishing is in well defined manner in specimen signatures (e.g. S553, S554) but not in disputed signatures (e.g. Q2407, Q2411) due to unusual pen pauses and sudden departures in the lines which suggest the lower writing movement employed by the writer, demonstrated at point h on the enlarged photographs.COMPARISON OF WRITINGS: The specimen writings (e.g. S600, S601) on careful examination show that they have been written and signed freely, carelessly and unconsciously with complete natural writing action, freedom of flow and smoothness. All these specimen writings are written by the skilled writer and they shows natural variations with each other due to the presence of slight divergences in curves, loops, angles and initial and terminal strokes of the letters. The disputed writings (e.g. Q2405, Q2410) on careful examination show that they
CC No. 19/2009 Page 102 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
have also been written by a skilled writer and free from any line quality defects such as hesitation on the parts of the strokes, unnatural pen pause in the middle of the strokes and a careful joining of the strokes at the starting, middle and ending connection of the letters etc. But these disputed writings are different in the manner and making of individual letters, curves, joining and placing of strokes and their connection etc. when they are compared with the specimen writings. Because both specimen and disputed writings are written by the skilled writers and no attempt is made to simulate/copy and trace from a model in disputed writings therefore some class characteristics features such as movement, speed, skill, pen scope, coordination of writing muscles, line quality defects such as hesitation, pen lifts, pen pause, retouching etc. has no significant value in comparison process. There are some superficial similarities between the disputed and specimen writings but careful and minute examination show differences in the formation of letters, which suggest that the disputed writings have not been written by the writer of the specimen writings. A comparison of other class and individual characteristics between the disputed and specimen writings is as under:1) SLANT: The degree of slant of the letters is more forward in disputed writing (e.g. Q5615, Q5619) as compared to the specimen writing (e.g. S600, S601).2) NATURAL VARIATIONS: The letters of the disputed writings (e.g. Q2425, Q5615) do not show natural variations with the specimen
CC No. 19/2009 Page 103 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
writings (e.g. S602, S603) due to the presence of different manner and execution of the letters. Only the letters of the specimen writings show natural variations interse in the form of slight divergences in curves, loops, angles and initial and terminal strokes of the letters.3) SIZE AND PROPORTIONS OF LETTERS: The size and proportion of the letters are not similar in their relative proportions in disputed writings when they are compared with the specimen writings due to the presence of different height and width of the letters. e.g. The height of the letters such as “E, g, h, s, e” etc. is more in specimen writing (e.g. S604, S605) but less in disputed writings (e.g. Q2425, Q5615).4) SPACING: The relative spacing between the wrods and letters is more in specimen writings but less in disputed writings . e.g. Between the words Eighteen and thousand the spacing is less in disputed writing (e.g. Q11641, Q11645) but more in specimen writings (S604, S605).INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTICS: Formation of individual letters of the disputed writings shows fundamental differences with the formation of individual letters of specimen writings in the following manner:a) Letter “E”: The upper loop of letter “E” in word eighteen is bigger in shape in specimen writing (e.g. S604, S605) as compared to the disputed writing. The terminal stroke makes retraced joining with the staff of letter “i” in disputed writing (e.g. Q2425, Q5615) but not in specimen writings, demonstrated at point a on the enlarged photographs.b) Letter “i”: It is more tended towards the
CC No. 19/2009 Page 104 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
right side in disputed writing (e.g. Q11641, Q11645) as compared to the specimen writings (e.g. S600, S601), demonstrated at point b on the enlarged photographs.c) Letter “q”: The lower loop is bigger in shape and the terminal makes crossing on the upper portion of its body staff in specimen writing (e.g. S604, S605) whereas the lower loop is smaller in shape and the terminal makes crossing on the middle portion of its body staff in disputed writing (e.g. Q2425, Q5615), demonstrated at point c on the enlarged photographs.d) Letter “h”: It is more tended towards the right side and makes loop in the body staff in disputed writings (e.g. Q11641, Q11645) whereas it is vertically placed and makes retracing with the body staff in specimen writing (e.g. S600, S601), demonstrated at point d on the enlarged photographs.e) Letter “n”: In word “Eighteen”, it is more tended towards the right side in disputed writings whereas vertically placed in specimen writings (e.g. S604, S605). In word “thousand” it is written in fully developed manner and style of formation in disputed writing (e.g. Q2425, Q5615) but not in specimen writing (e.g. S600, S601), demonstrated at point e on the enlarged photographs. f) Letter “t”: In word “thousand”, it is written in continuation manner with the staff of letter “h” in disputed writings (e.g. Q11641, Q11645) whereas written separately in specimen writing (e.g. S600, S601). It is also written in upper case manner in Q5615, Q5619 and Q5623, demonstrated at point f on the
CC No. 19/2009 Page 105 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
enlarged photographs.h) Letter “i”: In word “sixteen”, the diacritic mark is tented type in specimen writings (e.g. S600, S601) whereas dot type in disputed writings (e.g. Q11641, Q11645), demonstrated at point h on the enlarged photographs. i) Letter “S”: In word “sixteen”, the lower loop is elliptical in shape in disputed writing (e.g. Q2425, Q5615) whereas mostly circular in specimen writings (e.g. S604, S605), demonstrated at point i on the enlarged photographs.j) Letter “x”: In word “sixteen”, the beginning stroke is curved in style in specimen writing (e.g. S600, S601) whereas straight stroke formation of manner in disputed writings (e.g. Q11641, Q11645), demonstrated at point j on the enlarged photographs.”
182. I have perused the reports of prosecution expert and the
defence expert and I have also perused the questioned
documents and the specimen handwritings/signatures. The
standard writings of accused Laxman Prasad are from S546 to
S619 Ex.PW26/1 to Ex.PW26/74. In these standard writings
his signatures as Hari Prasad have been taken on S550 to
S565. Similarly his standard handwritings in numerals and in
words mentioning the “amount” is taken on S600 to S605. I
take the example of the KVP no. 45CC 163660 Ex.PW14/D59.
CC No. 19/2009 Page 106 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
On this KVP, Q9868 is the handwriting of the amount of Rs.
18600/ and “Eighteen thousand and six hundred” with the date
“8.5.1999”. The signatures of recipient on this KVP is at point
Q9869. The standard handwriting of the signatures available
from S550 to S565 fully matches with Q9869. Similarly
perusal of standard handwriting at S600 Ex.PW26/55 namely
“Eighteen thousand five hundred only” would show that it
unmistakably matches with Q9868 (except the word “six”
because in the sample handwriting word “five” has been
written.) At S602/1 Ex.PW26/58, the word “Sixteen
thousand” has been written. From this specimen handwriting,
the word “six” written in the aforesaid KVP at Q9868 can be
compared. The very perusal of both these words specially the
manner of writing 'S' is without any doubt similar.
183. I may point out that the handwriting expert has examined
large number of documents allegedly forged by accused Laxman
Prasad but as per his opinion as many as 527 questioned
handwritings on the KVPs and identity slips matched with his
specimen handwritings/signatures.
184. I would again revert to the opinion of defence expert,
which is Ex.DW1/C. In his opinion he has stated that the
specimen handwriting have been written by a skilled writer,
CC No. 19/2009 Page 107 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
whereas the questioned handwritings show a lesser degree of
penmanship. I disagree with his opinion because both the
writings show equal degree of penmanship. Since a different
pen was used in writing the specimen and the questioned
documents, it appears that such difference has been taken by
the defence expert as different degrees of penmanship.
Regarding the opinion of expert on the movement, line quality,
speed and style, I would say that the defence expert has not
considered the fact that, whereas the specimen
handwriting/signatures were written on broad sheets having
ample space, the questioned handwritings and signatures were
written on a very small space available on the KVPs. Hence this
difference. On the formation of letters, I would say that there
has to be natural variations in the handwriting of a person but
that would not lead to the conclusion that the same have been
written by two different persons.
185. On the other hand, PW37 in his opinion has referred to
the typical habits of the writer of both the handwritings, which
are nature and location of “idot”, bifurcation in the execution of
letter 'r', start of 'o', start of letter 'n' with the nature of its
diagonal stroke, formation of 'H' and 'p' etc. Even the numerals
in the questioned handwriting on the KVPs also match with the
CC No. 19/2009 Page 108 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
standard handwriting.
186. Hence I reject the report of the defence expert and accept
the opinion of PW37 and hold that the KVPs in question have
not only been forged by Laxman Prasad but also since he has
put the signatures of a fake holder namely “Hari Prasad” as the
receiver of the cash amount, I hold that he has also cheated the
postal department by impersonation.
Evidence qua accused Hari Narayan Pal @ Neta (A6)
187. It is argued by Sh. Kedar Yadav, adv. Ld. Amicus Curie
that PW29 Devender Kumar, who is a Chowkidar in Dadari Post
Office, Lala Ram Bharti (PW8) and Nand Kishore Joshi (PW27),
are highly doubtful witnesses. Further the testimony of Sushil
Krishan Nagar (PW6) is also unworthy of credence. It is argued
that Devender Kumar, Lala Ram Bharti and Nand Kishore Joshi
are postal officials and it appears that they have actively
colluded in commission of the offence. Further more their
testimonies are not corroborated by independent evidence. It is
argued that the testimony of PW6 Sushil Krishan Nagar is very
vague. Ld. Defence Counsel argues that PW8 Lala Ram Bharti,
who was posted in Post Office, Lodhi Road, New Delhi, has
testified that accused H. N. Pal had come with one Paliwal and
had taken a booklet of identity slips. It is argued that this
CC No. 19/2009 Page 109 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
evidence does not connect H. N. Pal with the commission of the
present offence because it is not known as to how this booklet of
identity slips was used in the commission of the offence
pertaining to Post Office Hari Nagar Ashram. It is further
argued that PW27 Nand Kishore Joshi, the postman in Lodhi
Road Post Office, does not in any manner name accused H. N.
Pal having received the identity slips booklet from him. It is
further argued that PW29 Devender Kumar, who was a
chowkidar at Dadri Post Office, does not testify as to what
accused H. N. Pal had done inside the post office.
188. On the other hand, Ld. Public Prosecutor argues that this
court had relied upon the testimonies of the aforesaid witnesses
while convicting accused H. N. Pal in CC No. 1/2010 pertaining
to the similar fraud committed in Nirankari Colony Post Office.
Ld. Public Prosecutor has argued that PW27 Nand Kishore Joshi
has testified that the Lala Ram Bharti, the postal assistant
posted in his post office namely Lodhi Road Post Office, had
taken the loose sheets of identity slip lying in the defective
papers in the stock room from him. It is submitted that PW8
Lala Ram Bharti has testified that he had supplied the identity
slips to accused H. N. Pal. PW29 Devender Kumar, the
chowkidar in Dadri Post office, has testified that accused H. N.
CC No. 19/2009 Page 110 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
Pal along with a view other persons had come to Dadri Post
Office at about 8:30 pm and made him to drink liquor due to
which be became intoxicated. They took out the keys from his
person and they were asking about the date's stamps.
Thereafter they went inside the hall and when he gained
consciousness, he found that in the main hall of the post office,
one stamp was lying on ground and two or three person were
lying in scattered position near box. Further Sh. Sunil Krishan
Nagar (PW6) has testified that accused K. M. Singh and H. N.
Pal had come to his shop and had requested him to prepare
designs of three or four various post offices for post office
department.
189. I have considered the testimonies of all these witnesses
and I say that their testimonies are truthful. PW27 Nand
Kishore Joshi as well as PW8 Lala Ram Bharti, both have
testified having supplied the identity slips to accused H. N. Pal.
PW8 Devender Kumar, the chowkidar in Dadri Post Office, also
testifies that H. N. Pal along with his accomplices had taken out
the key from his person and was asking for the date's stamp and
when they left, PW8 found that one stamp was lying on the
ground and other stamps were lying in scattered position. It is
clear that accused H. N. Pal was upto some mischief. However
CC No. 19/2009 Page 111 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
with a view to connect him with the forgeries and conspiracy in
the present case pertaining to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office,
prosecution must prove something more to connect this accused
to the hilt.
190. I may point out that in the case CC No. 1/2010, which
pertained to a similar fraud committed in Nirankari Colony Post
Office, I had relied upon the testimonies of the aforesaid
witnesses but there was also an unmistakable evidence of hand
writing expert, which proved that he had forged many KVPs.
However this is not the case here. Apart from the aforesaid
witnesses, there is no evidence to show that the booklet of
identity slip taken by accused H. N. Pal from Lala Ram Bharti
and using the stamps of Dadri Post Office on the KVPs, the fraud
was committed in Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office. Therefore the
hands of law reach upto this accused but fall short of catching
his neck. Accordingly I give benefit of reasonable doubt to this
accused and acquit him.
Conspiracy
191. It has been argued by all the accused persons that there is
no evidence that the accused persons have ever met each other.
Hence it is argued that no offence of conspiracy is disclosed. I
disagree with the defence submissions. On arrest, accused K. M.
CC No. 19/2009 Page 112 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
Singh had disclosed the names of accused Sohan Pal Sharma
(A2), Laxman Prasad (A3) and Satish Pal Singh (A7) along with
the other accused persons including Rohtash Kanwar (since
convicted) having actively taken part in forgery of KVPs and
getting the same encashed fraudulently from the Post Office
Hari Nagar Ashram. Pursuant to disclosure statement,
investigation started and during investigations eight blank NC32
forms with the handwriting of accused Satish Pal Singh were
recovered at the instance of accused K. M. Singh. This aspect
has already been dealt by me in earlier part of this judgement.
Further the disclosed fact of accused Sohan Pal Sharma and
Laxman Prasad @ Thakur (and also Rohtash Kanwar) having
forged and having encashed the stolen KVPs stand proved by
handwriting experts as discussed above. I may mention that in
his disclosure statement dated 27.6.1999 accused K. M. Singh
had disclosed the name of one “Thakur” who was a close
confidante of Sohan Pal Sharma. In his disclosure statement
Ex.PW39/A40 accused Sohan Pal Sharma had disclosed the
name of Laxman Prasad @ Thakur as a conspirator. I may
mention here that in his statement under Section 313 CrPC
accused Laxman Prasad in answer to question no. 317 has
stated that he was a tenant of Sohan Pal Sharma, which fortifies
CC No. 19/2009 Page 113 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
the prosecution case and the disclosure statement of K. M. Singh
that Laxman Prasad was a close confidante of accused Sohan Pal
Sharma. As stated earlier, the handwriting of Laxman Prasad
also matched with the questioned handwritings. In these
circumstances, prosecution has proved a complete chain that
accused Sohan Pal Sharma has impersonated as “Chaudhary
Harpal Singh” and got encashed 125 KVPs, accused Laxman
Prasad has impersonated as “Hari Prasad” a fake holder of the
KVPs and got encahsed 527 KVPs. It needs to be mentioned
here that accused Rohtash Kanwar was charged with having
impersonated as “Ramesh Kumar Sharma” and fraudulently got
encashed 383 KVPs and he was convicted on his plea of guilt.
The entire conspiracy originates from accused K. M. Singh.
Though there is no direct evidence of the accused persons
having met each other but the chain of circumstances leaves no
other option but to hold that they were colluding with each
other in commission of these offences. Accused K. M. Singh is
the hidden face behind the entire conspiracy, whereas accused
Sohan Pal Sharma and Laxman Prasad (as well as Rohtash
Kanwar, A4) were the front men executing the conspiracy. At
the cost of repetition, I would say that recovery of blank forms
NC32 having been duly stamped with the stamp of Hari Nagar
CC No. 19/2009 Page 114 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
Ashram Post Office with the endorsement and initials of accused
Satish Pal Singh (A7) leaves me in no doubt that entire
conspiracy was being executed with active aid of Satish Pal
Singh, who was postal assistant in that post office. I would
repeat again that the only inference that can be drawn from
these blank KVPs duly stamped and endorsed “for transfer” is
that the particulars of stolen KVPs were to be filled in these
forms so that after making the fake verification of these KVPs,
the same may be presented to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office
and such stolen KVPs are got encashed from the said post office.
Needless to say that KVPs are valuable securities within the
definition of Section 30 IPC and forgery of the same falls within
the four corners of Section 467 IPC.
192. In view of above discussions, accused Hari Narain Pal (A6)
stands acquitted. However I convict Krishan Madhwa Singh
(A1), Sohan Pal Sharma @ Panditji (A2), Laxman Prasad @
Thakur (A3) and Satish Pal Singh (A7) under Section 120B IPC
read with Section 419/420/467/471 IPC read with Section
13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption
Act 1988.
193. I further convict accused Sohan Pal Sharma @ Panditji
(A2) and Laxman Prasad (A3) under Section 419/420/467/471
CC No. 19/2009 Page 115 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
IPC.
194. I further convict accused Satish Pal Singh under Section
13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption
Act 1988 because he had abused his powers by handing over to
accused K. M. Singh the blank NC32 forms by making
endorsement of “for transfer” and putting a stamp of his post
office.
Announced in the opencourt on 17.8.2012.
(VINOD KUMAR)Spl. Judge, CBIII
Rohini, Delhi
CC No. 19/2009 Page 116 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
IN THE COURT OF SH. VINOD KUMARSPLECIAL JUDGEII (P. C. ACT, CBI), ROHINI, DELHI
RC No. S19/1999/E0001/SPE/SIUIXCC No. 19/2009(Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office, Delhi)CBI Vs (1) Krishan Madhwa Singh
S/o Sh. Jai Nath SinghR/o J130, Sector09, Vijay Nagar, Ghaziabad.
(2) Sohan Pal Sharma @ PanditjiS/o Sh. Deep ChandR/o D74, Ganga Vihar, Delhi94.
(3) Laxman Prasad @ ThakurS/o Late Sh. Kalpnath PrasadR/o C120, Street No.5, Ganga Vihar, Delhi94.
(4) Satish Pal SinghS/o Sh. Kehar SinghR/o C33, LIG Flats, East of Loni Road,Shahdara, Delhi
18.8.2012
ORDER ON SENTENCE
1. It is argued by Sh. Kedar Yadav, adv., Ld. Amicus Curie for
convict Krishan Madhwa Singh that he is 56 years old and is the
sole bread winner and that it is his first conviction. It is
submitted by Sh. Kedar Yadav, adv. that convict Sohan Pal
Sharma, aged 69 years, has only one son, who has also been
convicted in another case of KVP fraud and now both are in jail.
CC No. 19/2009 Page 117 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
It is submitted that wife of convict Sohan Pal Sharma has
already expired, therefore only his daughter in law is left in the
family to look after two mentally retarded children of his son. It
is further argued by Sh. Kedar Yadav, adv., Ld. Amicus Curie for
convict Laxman Prasad that he is 60 years old having three
children and has only been convicted in one another case of KVP
scam in which only a sentence of three years was awarded to
him.
2. It is further argued by Sh. Kedar Yadav, adv., Ld. Amicus
Curie that convict Satish Pal Singh has six children, out of which
four are daughters of marriageable age and if he is sentenced,
his entire family would come on road.
3. It is therefore prayed that a lenient view may be taken and
minimum sentence should be awarded.
4. Ld. Public Prosecutor however prays for maximum doze of
sentence in view of the gravity of the offence.
5. I have considered the submissions. The offences are
indeed very serious and the facts submitted by Ld. Defence
Counsel are not weighty enough to take a lenient view.
6. I therefore sentence convict Krishan Madhwa Singh to
rigorous imprisonment for seven years and a fine in the sum of
Rs.1000/ under Section 120B IPC read with Section
CC No. 19/2009 Page 118 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
419/420/467/471 IPC read with Section 13(1)(d) read with
Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. In default
of payment of fine he shall undergo simple imprisonment for
one month.
7. I sentence convict Sohan Pal Sharma @ Panditji and
Laxman Prasad @ Thakur to rigorous imprisonment for seven
years and a fine in the sum of Rs.1000/ under Section 120B
IPC read with Section 419/420/467/471 IPC read with Section
13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption
Act 1988. In default of payment of fine they shall undergo
simple imprisonment for one month each.
8. I sentence convict Sohan Pal Sharma @ Panditji and
Laxman Prasad @ Thakur to rigorous imprisonment for seven
years and a fine in the sum of Rs.1000/ under Section 467
IPC. In default of payment of fine they shall undergo simple
imprisonment for one month each.
9. I sentence convict Sohan Pal Sharma @ Panditji and
Laxman Prasad @ Thakur to rigorous imprisonment for three
years and a fine in the sum of Rs.1000/ under Section 419
IPC. In default of payment of fine they shall undergo simple
imprisonment for one month each.
CC No. 19/2009 Page 119 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
10. I sentence convict Sohan Pal Sharma @ Panditji and
Laxman Prasad @ Thakur to rigorous imprisonment for three
years and a fine in the sum of Rs.1000/ under Section 420
IPC. In default of payment of fine they shall undergo simple
imprisonment for one month each.
11. I sentence convict Sohan Pal Sharma @ Panditji and
Laxman Prasad @ Thakur to rigorous imprisonment for three
years and a fine in the sum of Rs.1000/ under Section 471
IPC. In default of payment of fine they shall undergo simple
imprisonment for one month each.
12. I sentence convict Satish Pal Singh to rigorous
imprisonment for seven years and a fine in the sum of Rs.
1000/ under Section 120B IPC read with Section
419/420/467/471 IPC read with Section 13(1)(d) read with
Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. In default
of payment of fine he shall undergo simple imprisonment for
one month.
13. I sentence convict Satish Pal Singh to rigorous
imprisonment for seven years and a fine in the sum of Rs.
1000/ under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of
Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. In default of payment of
fine he shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month.
CC No. 19/2009 Page 120 / 121
CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012
14. All the sentences shall run concurrently. In case any of
the convicts had remained in judicial custody in this case,
benefit under Section 428 CrPC may be given to him.
15.The sentence warrants be prepared and file be consigned to
record room.
Announced in the opencourt on 18.8.2012.
(VINOD KUMAR)Spl. Judge, CBIII
Rohini, Delhi
CC No. 19/2009 Page 121 / 121
top related