kisan vikas patra scam cbi court delhi judgement

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 / 121


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 / 121


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 / 121


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 / 121


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 / 121


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 / 121


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.






CC No. 19/2009 / 121


















KVPs bearing serial no. 28CC970301 to 28CC970310



Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.1,62,000/ to him against



CC No. 19/2009 / 121


















these KVPs.






CC No. 19/2009 / 121




these KVPs.








these KVPs.








these KVPs.




CC No. 19/2009 / 121






these KVPs.








these KVPs.








these KVPs.


CC No. 19/2009 / 121





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.

















CC No. 19/2009 / 121
















to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 3.3.99 and presented KVPs


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.




CC No. 19/2009 / 121
























CC No. 19/2009 / 121









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.








against these KVPs.




CC No. 19/2009 / 121






against these KVPs.








against these KVPs.








against these KVPs.


CC No. 19/2009 / 121








against these KVPs.








against these KVPs.








CC No. 19/2009 / 121


against these KVPs.








against these KVPs.








against these KVPs.




bearing serial no. 45CC163621 to 45CC163630 purported to

have been issued from Charbagh Lucknow (UP) Post Office vide

CC No. 19/2009 / 121
























CC No. 19/2009 / 121
















who made payment of Rs.74,400/ to him against these KVPs.








CC No. 19/2009 / 121


against these KVPs.








against these KVPs.








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 / 121


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


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.












CC No. 19/2009 / 121
























CC No. 19/2009 / 121



against these KVPs.




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.








KVPs.





CC No. 19/2009 / 121





KVPs.








KVPs.








KVPs.



CC No. 19/2009 / 121







KVPs.








KVPs.








KVPs.

CC No. 19/2009 / 121









KVPs.








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 / 121


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


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.



went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 6.3.99 and presented


purported to have been issued from Batwadi Post Office

Akola444302 vide Regn. No. 978 dated 4.2.94 to postmaster

CC No. 19/2009 / 121



against these KVPs.








against these KVPs.













CC No. 19/2009 / 121





against these KVPs.



















CC No. 19/2009 / 121




57CC823126 purported to have been issued from Hata Post



these KVPs.








these KVPs.








these KVPs.

CC No. 19/2009 / 121









these KVPs.





purported to have been issued from Hata Post Office vide Regn.










CC No. 19/2009 / 121









these KVPs.















CC No. 19/2009 / 121













purported to have been issued from Rajkishore, Rajkot Post

Office 360001 vide Regn. No. 346 dated 21.4.94 to postmaster


against these KVPs.








CC No. 19/2009 / 121


against these KVPs.








against these KVPs.








against these KVPs.






CC No. 19/2009 / 121




against these KVPs.








against these KVPs.








against these KVPs.




CC No. 19/2009 / 121






against these KVPs.





46CC855790 purported to have been issued from Rajkishore,

Rajkot Post Office 360001 vide Regn. No. 354 dated 21.4.94 to












CC No. 19/2009 / 121
























CC No. 19/2009 / 121





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 / 121


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 / 121


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 / 121


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 / 121


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 / 121


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 / 121


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 / 121


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 / 121


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 / 121


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 / 121


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 / 121


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 / 121


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 / 121


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 / 121


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 / 121


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 / 121


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 / 121


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 / 121


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 / 121


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


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 / 121


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 / 121


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 / 121


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 / 121


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 / 121


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 / 121


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 / 121


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 / 121


(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 / 121


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 / 121


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 / 121


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 / 121


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 / 121


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


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 / 121


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 / 121


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 / 121


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 / 121


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 / 121


(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 / 121


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 / 121


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 / 121


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 / 121


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 / 121


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 / 121


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 / 121


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 / 121


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 / 121


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 / 121


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 / 121


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 / 121


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 / 121


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 / 121


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 / 121


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 / 121


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 / 121


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 / 121


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 / 121


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 / 121


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 / 121


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 / 121


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 / 121


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 / 121


“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 / 121


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 / 121


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 / 121


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 / 121


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 / 121


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 / 121


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 / 121


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 / 121


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 / 121


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 / 121


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 / 121


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 / 121


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 / 121


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 / 121


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 / 121


IPC.

194. I further convict accused Satish Pal Singh under Section


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 / 121


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 / 121


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 / 121


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


Act 1988. In default of payment of fine they shall undergo

simple imprisonment for one month each.


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.


Laxman Prasad @ Thakur to rigorous imprisonment for three




CC No. 19/2009 / 121












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 / 121


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 / 121

kisan vikas patra scam cbi court delhi judgement

Documents