Kisan Vikas Patra Scam CBI Court Delhi Judgement

CBIVsK.M.Singhetc.Judgementdt.17.8.
2012
INTHECOURTOFSH.VINODKUMAR
SPLECIALJUDGEII(P.C.ACT,CBI),ROHINI,DELHI
CCNo.19/2009
(HariNagarAshramPostOffice,Delhi)
CBIVs
(1) KrishanMadhwaSingh
S/oSh.JaiNathSingh
R/oJ130,Sector09,VijayNagar,Ghaziabad.
(2) SohanPalSharma@Panditji
S/oSh.DeepChand
R/oD74,GangaVihar,Delhi94.
(3) LaxmanPrasad@Thakur
S/oLateSh.KalpnathPrasad
R/oC120,StreetNo.5,GangaVihar,Delhi94.
(4) RohtashKanwar(Alreadyconvicted)
S/oSh.ChanderBhan
R/oRZ68,IndiraPark,UttamNagar,
NewDelhi110059.
(5) HarishChander(Discharged)
S/oSh.AttarSingh
R/oB,DakshaRoad,BiswasNagarShahdara,
Delhi110032andC28,EastUttamNagar,
NewDelhi59.
(6) HariNarayanPal@Neta
S/oSh.HariDutt
R/oR1/14,NawadaHosingComplex,
UttamNagar,NewDelhi110059.
(7) SatishPalSingh
S/oSh.KeharSingh
R/oC33,LIGFlats,EastofLoniRoad,
Shahdara,Delhi
(8) AlwarSingh(Expired)
CCNo.19/2009Page1/121
CBIVsK.M.Singhetc.Judgementdt.17.8.2012
S/oSh.RalhanSingh
R/oRZ15A/1,MainSagarpur,Delhi110046.
Dateofconclusionoffinalarguments:13.8.2012
Dateofjudgement:17.8.2012
JUDGEMENT
1.
Prosecution story as unfolded during the trial is that

genuineKisanVikasPatrasweredespatchedfromNasikSecurity
Press, Nasik to different consignees in India by Railways.
During transit the said KVPs were stolen at various places
includingPatnaJn.RailwayYardbybreakingopenthewagon
in the Railway Yard of Patna Railway Station. The open
deliveryoftheconsignmentwasreceivedbyOfficersofCircle
StampDepotPatnawhoreportedthemattertothePolice.The
theftofKVPswascirculatedthroughoutIndiathroughdifferent
missing/lost circulars. One Naresh Praasad @ Sadhu was
arrestedbyCBIinCBIcaseRC45(E)/98BS&FCNewDelhiand
atpresentheisinjudicialcustody. Inthisregardacasehas
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
379/411IPCatHowrahGRP.ThesestolenKVPsweresoldby
said Naresh Prasad @ Sadhu, Ramesh Kumar Ramania and
CCNo.19/2009Page2/121
Mohd.Anwartovariouspersons.AccusedK.M.Singh(A1)and
H.N.Pal@Neta(A6)inpursuranceofsaidcriminalconspiracy
procured the stolen KVPs from Afzal Siddiqui and Sehzada
SiddiquifromLucknow.AccusedAfzalSiddiquiisanaccusedin
CBIcaseRCS192000E0001andisfacingtrialintheCourtof
SpecialJudge,TisHazariCourt,Delhi.
2.
Investigation has further revealed that accused K. M.
Singh (A1) in conspiracy with coaccused Laxman Prasad @

Thakur(A3),SohanPalSharma@Panditji(A2),HariNarayan
Pal@Neta(A6),HarishChander(A5),SatishPalSingh(A7)
andAlwarSingh(A8)forgedthestolenKisanVikasPatrasand
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)
obtainedthroughfraudulentmeansidentityslipbookletsfrom
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
LucknowPostOffice,MachhrauliPostoffice,KarnalHeadPost
Office,RajkishoreRajkotPostoffice360001,HataPostOffice&
Batwadi Akola PO 4443021, and presented at Hari Nagar
AshramPostOfficeforencashment.Investigationhasrevealed
CCNo.19/2009Page3/121
thataccusedK.M.Singh(A1)andaccusedHariNarayanPal@
Neta(A6)usedtoprocurethesestolenKVPsfromtheirsource
AfzalSiddiquiandSehzadaSiddiquibasedinLucknow.
3.
InvestigationhasrevealedthataccusedK.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
AshramPostOffice,accusedK.M.Singh(A1),coaccusedH.N.
Pal @ Neta (A6) and accused Sohan Pal Sharma @ Panditji
(A2) met him and hatched a conspiracy to encash the
stolen/forgedKVPsbyforgingtheverificationreportsonNC32
Forms of the issuing Post Offices. Accused Satish Pal Singh
(A7)wasaskedtointercepttheNC32Formsandhandthem
overtoK.M.Singh(A1)orothercoaccusedpersonswhoafter
forgingtheverificationreportswouldagainhandthemoverto
accusedSatishPalSingh(A7).
4.
InvestigationhasrevealedthataccusedSohanPalSharma
@Panditji(A2)infurtheranceofthecriminalconspiracyforged
the body writing of KVPs bearing Nos. 45CC163601 to
45CC163321to45CC163400,31BB007761to31BB007800,
28CC970338 to 28CC970348 and 28CC982031 to 982040
total 277 KVPs in the fictitious name of Hari Prasad. These
CCNo.19/2009Page4/121
KVPswereencashedbyaccusedLaxmanPrasad@Thakur(A3)
(whowastheservantofaccusedSohanPalSharma)fromHari
NagarAshram,PostOffice,NewDelhi110014duringtheperiod
between27.3.1998to12.6.1999.
5.
Investigatgion has revealed that the accused Sohan Pal
Sharma@Panditji(A2)infurtheranceoftheconspiracyforged
theabovereferredstolenKVPsandfacilitatedtheencashmentof
KVPs to the tune of Rs.46,36,100/ thereby caused wrongful
gaintohimselfandotheraccusedpersonsandwrongfullossto
theGovernmentofIndia.
6.
Investigation has further revealed that in furtherance to
thesaidcriminalconspiracyaccusedK.M.Singh(A1)directed
accusedSatishPalsingh(A7)thataccusedRohtash(A4)would
reach Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office for encashment of the
KVPs. Accused Satish Pal Singh (A7) informed him tht Post
MasterAlwarSingh(A8)wasgoingfortrainingtoSaharanpur
and therefore he should send Rohtash on the same day.
Accordingly,asperthedirectionofaccusedK.M.singh(A1),
accusedRohtashKanwar(A4)wenttoHariNagarAshramPost
Officeandpresentedthestolen/forgedKVPstothetuneofRs.8
Lacsforencashment.AccusedAlwarSingh(A8)onseeingthe
KVPsaskedaccusedSatishPalSingh(A7)tosendNC32Forms
CCNo.19/2009Page5/121
totheissuingPostOfficeandverifytheparitcularsandhimself
wentontrainingtoSaharanpur(UP).AccusedSatishPalSingh
(A7)infurtheranceofcriminalconspiracysignedoneightNC
32Forms andalsoputthestampofHariNagarAshramPost
OfficeandgavethemtoaccusedK.M.Singh(A1)forgetting
the verification forged. These eight NC32 Forms were
recovered from the car of accused K. M. Singh (A1) on his
pointingout.
7.
InvestigationhasrevealedthataccusedSohanPalSharma
(A2) was in possession of three blank NC32 Forms seized

during the search of his house. Investigation has further
revealedthataccusedSohanPalSharma@Panditji(A2)had
met accused Harish Chander (A%) at Gole Dakkhana where
accused Harish Chander (A5) ws working as a Mail Man.
AccusedHarishChander(A5)askedaccusedSohanPalSharma
@Panditji(A2)toforgethebodywritingoftheKVPssothat
theycouldbeencashed.
8.
InvestigationhasrevealedthataccusedK.M.Singh(A1)
and accused H. N. Pal @ Neta (A6) got prepared round

seals/stampwhichwereusedtoforgetheKVPstoshowthemto
havebeenissuedfromtheconcernedPostOffice.
9.
InvestigationhasfurtherrevealedthatLaxmanPrasad@
CCNo.19/2009Page6/121
Thakur(A3)personatinghimselfasHariPrasadwenttoHari
NagarAshramPostOfficeon23/6/1998andpresentedKVPs
bearingserialno.31BB007761to31BB007770purportedto
havebeenissuedfromRajajiPuramPostOfficeLucknowvide
Regn.No.741dated24.2.94toPostmasterAlwarSingh(A8)
whomadepaymentofRs.81,000/tohimagainsttheseKVPs.
TheseKVPswerepresentedalongwithidentityslipbearingno.
18/43892.
10.
InvestigationhasfurtherrevealedthatSh.LaxmanPrasad
@Thakur(A3)personatinghimselfasHariPrasadagainwent
to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 13.6.98 and presented
KVPs bearing serial no. 31BB007771 to 31BB007780
purportedtohavebeenissuedfromRajajiPuramLucknowPost
OfficevideRegn.No.742dated24.2.94topostmasterAlwar
Singh(A8)whomadepaymentofRs.81,000/tohimagainst
theseKVPs.TheseKVPswerepresentedalongwithidentityslip
bearingno.19/43892.
11.
CCNo.19/2009Page7/121
bearingno.20/43892.
12.
bearingno.21/43892.
13.
KVPs bearing serial no. 28CC970301 to 28CC970310
Singh(A8)whomadepaymentofRs.1,62,000/tohimagainst
bearingno.22/43892.
CCNo.19/2009Page8/121
14.
bearingno.23/43892.
15.
theseKVPs.
16.
CCNo.19/2009Page9/121
theseKVPs.
17.
theseKVPs.
18.
theseKVPs.
19.
CCNo.19/2009Page10/121

theseKVPs.
20.
toHari NagarAshram Post Office on21.12.98 and presented
theseKVPs.
21.
toHari NagarAshram Post Office on21.12.98 and presented
theseKVPs.
22.
CCNo.19/2009Page11/121
purportedtohavebeenissuedfromJindHeadPostOfficevide
Regn.No.565dated16.2.94topostmasterAlwarSingh(A8)
whomadepaymentofRs.1,86,000/tohimagainsttheseKVPs.
23.
24.
25.
CCNo.19/2009Page12/121

26.
27.
toHariNagarAshramPostOfficeon3.3.99andpresentedKVPs
havebeenissuedfromJindHeadPostOfficevideRegn.No.528
dated 6.2.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh (A8) who made
paymentofRs.1,86,000/tohimagainsttheseKVPs.
28.
CCNo.19/2009Page13/121
29.
Regn. No. 530 dated 6.2.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh (A8)
30.
31.
CCNo.19/2009Page14/121
32.
purported to have been issued from Charbagh Lucknow (UP)
Post Office vide Regn. No. 1381 dated 8.3.94 to postmaster
AlwarSingh(A8)whomadepaymentofRs.1,86,000/tohim
againsttheseKVPs.
33.
againsttheseKVPs.
34.
CCNo.19/2009Page15/121

againsttheseKVPs.
35.
toHariNagarAshramPostOfficeon2730.3.99andpresented
againsttheseKVPs.
36.
againsttheseKVPs.
37.
CCNo.19/2009Page16/121
againsttheseKVPs.
38.
againsttheseKVPs.
39.
CCNo.19/2009Page17/121
againsttheseKVPs.
40.
againsttheseKVPs.
41.
againsttheseKVPs.
42.
bearingserialno.45CC163621to45CC163630purportedto
havebeenissuedfromCharbaghLucknow(UP)PostOfficevide
CCNo.19/2009Page18/121
43.
44.
45.
CCNo.19/2009Page19/121
46.
47.
whomadepaymentofRs.74,400/tohimagainsttheseKVPs.
48.
CCNo.19/2009Page20/121
againsttheseKVPs.
49.
againsttheseKVPs.
50.
againsttheseKVPs.
51.
Investigation has thus revealed that accused Laxman
Prasad@Thakur(A3)haspersonatedhimselfasHariPrasad
andpresentedbeforeaccusedAlwarSingh(A8)PostmasterHari
Nagar Ashram Post Office 477 above referred stolen/forged
KVPs of the face value of Rs.35,70,000/ and cheated the
CCNo.19/2009Page21/121
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
28CC982155purportedtohavebeenissuedfromMachharuli
Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.86,500/ to him
against these KVPs. These KVPs were presented along with
IdentitySlipNos.15/43893.
53.

54.

CCNo.19/2009Page22/121

55.

56.

CCNo.19/2009Page23/121

againsttheseKVPs.
57.

presentedKVPsbearingserialno.35BB922201to35BB922210
purported to have been issued from Karnal Head Post Office
vide Regn. No. 525dated23.3.94 topostmaster Alwar Singh
(A8)whomadepaymentofRs.86,500/ tohimagainst these
KVPs.
58.

KVPs.
59.

CCNo.19/2009Page24/121

KVPs.
60.

KVPs.
61.

KVPs.
62.

CCNo.19/2009Page25/121

KVPs.
63.

KVPs.
64.

KVPs.
CCNo.19/2009Page26/121
65.

KVPs.
66.

KVPs.
67.
Investigation has thus revealed that accused Sohan Pal
Sharma@Panditji(A2)haspersonatedhimselfasChaudhary
HarpalSinghandpresentedbeforeaccusedAlwarSingh(A8)
PostmasterHariNagarAshramPostOffice125abovereferred
stolen/forged KVPs of the face value of Rs.7,50,000/ and
cheated the Government of India by fraudulent means to the
CCNo.19/2009Page27/121
tuneofRs.12,97,500/.
68.
InvestigationhasfurtherrevealedthatSh.RohtashKanwar
personating himself as Ramesh Kumar Sharma went to Hari

NagarAshramPostOfficeon5.3.99andpresentedKVPsbearing
serial no. 34CC579620 to 34CC579629 purported to have
beenissuedfromBatwadiPostOfficeAkola444302videRegn.
No. 975 dated 4.2.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh (A8) who
madepaymentofRs.1,86,000/tohimagainsttheseKVPs.
69.
Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Rohtash
Kanwar personating himself as Ramesh Kumar Sharma again

represented KVPs bearing serial no. 34CC579633 to
34CC579642purportedtohavebeenissuedfromBatwadiPost
Office Akola444302 vide Regn. No. 977 dated 4.2.94 to
postmaster Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.
1,86,000/tohimagainsttheseKVPs.
70.

wenttoHariNagarAshramPostOfficeon6.3.99andpresented
purported to have been issued from Batwadi Post Office
Akola444302videRegn.No. 978dated4.2.94 topostmaster
CCNo.19/2009Page28/121
againsttheseKVPs.
71.

againsttheseKVPs.
72.

73.

CCNo.19/2009Page29/121

againsttheseKVPs.
74.

75.

76.

CCNo.19/2009Page30/121

57CC823126 purported to have been issued from Hata Post
theseKVPs.
77.

theseKVPs.
78.

theseKVPs.
CCNo.19/2009Page31/121
79.

theseKVPs.
80.

purportedtohavebeenissuedfromHataPostOfficevideRegn.
No.1011dated18.3.94topostmasterAlwarSingh(A8)who
81.

CCNo.19/2009Page32/121
82.

wenttoHariNagarAshramPostOfficeon242627.3.99and
theseKVPs.
83.

84.

CCNo.19/2009Page33/121
85.

86.

purported to have been issued from Rajkishore, Rajkot Post
Office360001videRegn.No.346dated21.4.94topostmaster
againsttheseKVPs.
87.

CCNo.19/2009Page34/121
againsttheseKVPs.
88.

againsttheseKVPs.
89.

againsttheseKVPs.
90.

CCNo.19/2009Page35/121
againsttheseKVPs.
91.

againsttheseKVPs.
92.

againsttheseKVPs.
93.

CCNo.19/2009Page36/121

againsttheseKVPs.
94.

46CC855790purportedtohavebeenissuedfromRajkishore,
RajkotPostOffice360001videRegn.No.354dated21.4.94to
95.

96.
CCNo.19/2009Page37/121

97.

98.

CCNo.19/2009Page38/121
99.

100.

101.

CCNo.19/2009Page39/121
102.
Investigation has thus revealed that accused Rohtash
KanwarhaspersonatedhimselfasRameshKumarSharmaand
presented before accused Alwar Singh (A8) Postmaster Hari
NagarAshramPostOfficetotalnumberof383abovereferred
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.
Investigationhasfurtherrevealedthaton19.6.99onthe
directionsofaccusedK.M.Singh,accusedRohtashKanwarhad
gone to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office, New Delhi and
presentedKVPSworthRs.8lacsapproximatelyforencashment.
Since accused Alwar Singh was proceeding on training to
SaharanpurheaskedaccusedRohtashSinghtogetNC32forms
photocopiedandsubmitthedetailstoaccusedSatishPalSingh
forverification. AccusedSatishPalSinghinpursuancetothe
criminalconspiracysignedthoseeightNC32formsandputthe
stampofHariNagarAshramPostOfficeandhandedoverthe
NC32formstoaccusedK.M.Singhforforgingtheverification.
He did not fill in the details of the KVPs which were to be
CCNo.19/2009Page40/121
verified. TheseeightNC32formsbearingonlythesignatures
ofaccusedSatishPalSinghandstampofHariNagarAshram
PostOfficewererecoveredfromthecarofaccusedK.M.Singh
onhispointingout.
104.
Investigation has further revealed that accused Alwar
Singh(A8)postedasSubPostmasterHariNagarAshramPost
Office abused his official position as public servant with
dishonest intention and made payments againt stolen and
forgedKVPsbearingserialno.45CC163601to45CC163700,
45CC163321 to 45CC163400, 35BB936301 to 936400,
34CC579620to34CC579629,34CC579633to34CC579699,
46CC855701 to 855860, 35BB940201 to 35BB940300,
35BB940541 to 35BB940600, 57CC823117 to 823126,
57CC823131to57CC823166,57CC811609to57CC811652,
28CC982151to28CC982175,35BB936601to35BB936700,
35BB922201to35BB922300,31BB007761to31BB007800,
28CC982031to28CC982040,46CC982201to 46CC982300,
28CC970301 to 28CC970336, 28CC970338 to 970348,
35BB940301to940500byintentionallyavoidingverificationof
theKVPsfromLostCircularsissuedbytheDepartmentofPosts
fromtimetotimeand hedeliberatelydidnotfollowthelaid
downproceduresinthePostOfficeSavingsBankManualVol.II
CCNo.19/2009Page41/121
regarding encashment of Cash Certificates. Sh. Alwar Singh

also failed to obtain/verify the proof of identity of Laxman
Prasad@Tahkur,SohanPalSharma@PanditjiandRohtash
Kanwar. AccusedAlwarSinghalsodeliberatelydidnotcheck
thattheidentityslipbookletsbearingthesameserialnumber
thatwereobtainedfraudulentlybyaccusedK.M.Singh,Harish
Chander,SohanPalSharmaandHariNarainPal@Netafrom
LodiRoadPostOfficewerethesameusedforRajajiPuramand
MachhrauliPostOfficesatthesametime.AccusedAlwarsingh
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
45CC163680wereencahsedbyhimonthesefaultyregistration
numbers.AccusedAlwarSinghalsodeliberatelyoverlookedthe
factthatKVPbearingserialno.45CC163373wasnotbearing
any registration number and encahsed the same for Laxman
PrasadforRs.1,86,000/. Thusbyabusinghisofficialposition
asaPublicServant,hecausedwrongfullosstoGovernmentof
India to the tune of Rs.1,89,53,700/ entrusted to him and
correspondingunduepecuniaryadvantagetohimselfandforco
CCNo.19/2009Page42/121
accusedpersons.
105.
On the above stated allegations charges under Section
13(1)(d) read with Section 13 (2) of PC Act 1998 and

419/420467/468/471IPCwereframedagainstaccusedSohan
PalSharma(A2).
A charge under Section 419/420/467/468/471 IPC was
framedagainstaccusedLaxmanParsad@Thakur(A3).
AchargeunderSection13(1)(d)readwithSection13(2)
ofPCActand409IPCwasframedagainstaccusedAlwarSingh
(A8).
A charge under Section 120 B IPC read with Section
419/420/467/468/471/409IPCand13(1)(d)and13(2)ofPC
ActwasframedagainstaccusedKrishanMadhwa(A1),Sohan
Pal Sharma (A2), Laxman Parasad @ Thakur (A3), Rohtas
Kanwar(A4),HariNarainPal(A6),SatishPalSingh(A7)and
AlwarSingh(A8).
A charge under Section 419/420/467/468/471 IPC was
framedagainstaccusedRohtasKanwar (A4). Alltheaccused

personspleadednotguiltyandclaimedtrial.
106.
Inordertoproveitscase,CentralBureauofInvestigation
hasexaminedasmanyas39witnessesinall. Letmestatein
brief,thestatementsmadebytheprosecutionwitnesses:
CCNo.19/2009Page43/121
107.
PW1Sh.IshwarSingh,theofficialfromthePostOffice
MalviyaNagar,testifiedtheprocedureofencashmentofKVPs
byapostoffice.
108.
PW2 Sh. Roop Chand, Asst. Superintendent of Post
Office,ForeignPostOffice,provedthePostOfficeSavingsBank
ManualVolumeIIEx.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)videhisorderEx.PW3/A.
110.
PW4Dr.D.VeenaKumariprovedsanctionunderSection
19ofPreventionofCorruptionActtoprosecuteaccusedAlwar
Singh (A8) and accused Satish Pal Singh (A7), which is
Ex.PW4/A.
111.
PW5 Sh. A. Kharkwal, Director Postal Services, Delhi
Circle,NewDelhi. HeaccordedsanctionunderSection19of
PreventionofCorruptionActtoprosecuteaccusedK.M.Singh
(A1).ThesanctionorderisEx.PW5/1.
112.
PW6Sh.SunilKrishanNagartestifiedthatfromtheyear
1995to2000hewasrunningafirmM/sDataProServicesat
Rajinder Palace and that he used to design as per the
specificationgivenbythecustomers. Hetestifiedthataccused
CCNo.19/2009Page44/121
K.M.Singh(A1)alongwithH.N.Pal(A6)cametohisshop
andrequestedhimtodesign3or4designsofstampsofvarious
post offices. He testified that he prepared the designs and
handed over the same to them next day, after getting the
charges.Incrossexaminationhetestifiedthathehadprepared
thedesignsofstampsimpressionand4specimenwereprepared
oneachpaper.
113.
PW7Sh.ManMohanSingh testifiedthataccusedAlwar
Singh(A8)hadgivenhisspecimensignatures.
114.
PW8Sh.LalaRamBhartideposedthatheknewSh.Ram
KumarPaliwalbeingemployedinhisdivisionwhocametohis
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 tohim then he(Lala RamBharti) took Ram Kumar
PaliwalinsidetheroomofthePostOffice,LodhiColonywhere
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,hehadaccompaniedwithhimintheirvehicleparked
CCNo.19/2009Page45/121
outside the post office, and had some cold drinks with them
(Ram Kumar Paliwal and accused Netaji) and from there
accusedNetajiandPaliwalleftthebuildingofthePostOffice
along with the slip booklets. He further deposed that 1520
days after the above visit accused Hari Narain Pal @ Netaji
accompaniedwithRamKumarPaliwalandsomeotherperson
whowasaccompanyingthematthetimeofhisfirstvisitagain
cametohisofficeatLodhiRoad.OnbeingaskedbyRamKumar
Paliwal, he got 23 more booklets containing the
aforementionedslipswhichtheytookawaywiththem.
He has further stated that his statement was recorded
during the course of investigation by the Investigation officer
standsprovedasEx.PW9/Awhereashisstatementrecordedon
13.9.1999undersection164Cr.P.CbytheLd.M.Misprovedas
Ex.PW9/B.
115.
PW9Sh.DineshChandSharmatestifiedthatintheyear
1999 he was working as Assistant Superintendent Post Office

DivisionintheofficeofSeniorSuperintendent,NewDelhiSouth
EastDivision,NewDelhi.Atthedirectionofhissuperiorofficer
hereachedHariNagarAshramPostOfficeandtookholdofSO
SubOfficeAccountsinwhichallthecashtransactionsofSub
PostOfficewerereflected. Hetestifiedthatheavypaymentof
CCNo.19/2009Page46/121
KVPsweremadeatthepostoficeduringtheperiodfromApril
1998toJune,1999. DuringthatperiodaccusedAlwarSingh
(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
applicationsofKVPsanddischargeJournalsandfoundthatin
allthecasesKVPswereshowntohavebeenpurchasedinother
circularofPostOfficei.e.outsideDelhi.Itwasalsofoundthat
thepersonnamedinthepurchasedapplicationhadbeenshown
residinginandaroundHariNagarAshramPostOfficeareasand
mostoftheapplicationsofthecertificate wereshowntohave
been transferred from Jind, Charbagh Lucknow, Rajaji Puram
Lucknow, Raj Kishore, Hata, Akola, Machhrauli, Karnal and
Rewa. Onperusaloftheapplicationsitwasrevealedthatthe
certificates were shown to have been received by transfer by
wayofNC32.Heinstructedanotherofficialtogoandverifythe
address giveninthe purchase applications and he alongwith
Sh.G.M.Verma,SSPOwenttoLodhiRoadHeadOfficewith
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
CCNo.19/2009Page47/121
certificates were issued. All the Post Offices responded that

thosecertificateswereneversoldattheirPostOffices. Inthe
meantime Sh. G. S. Yadav reported that either the addresses
writtenonthepurchaseapplicationswerefakeorthepersons
namedintheapplicationwerenotresidingattheaddresses.He
also came to know that no post office with the name of Raj
Kishoreexistedinhisdivision.HeprovedtheletterofSh.C.M.
Verma SSPO as Ex.PW9/A. He proved the the list of KVPs
purportedlyissuedbytheaforesaidpostoffices.Healsoproved
the reports of G. S. Yadav PRIP about the verification of the
addressesofthepersonspurportedlyholdingthesaidKVPs.He
provedtelegramsenttotheaforesaidpostofficesandthereplies
fromtheconcernedpostofficesfromwherethequestionedKVPs
wereissued.
116.
PW10Sh.KrishanMadanSinghistheelderbrotherofK.
M.Singh(A1)andprovedafewpropertydocumentsconcerning
himselfandhiswife.
117.
PW11 Sh. Ravinder Kumar Lal was posted as ASP
Investigationin the officeofChiefPost MasterGeneralPatna

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
whichshort deliveriesofsecuritypaperswerereportedbythe
CCNo.19/2009Page48/121
CSDOfficePatna.(originalinCCNo.17/02).
118.
PW12Sh.ShambhuNath wastheAssistantPostMaster
(Treasury)LodhiRoadPostOffice,NewDelhi.Hetestifiedthat
the sub post offices were authorized to maintain a minimum
cash balance ranging between Rs.5000/ to Rs.20,000/. He
testifiedthatintheyear1998,accusedAlwarSiongh(A8)was
postedasSubMasterinHariNagarAshramChowkPostOffice,
NewDelhi.HeprovedtheSOdailyaccountsofvariousdates.
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.
5.11.1988till14.2.1998.HetestifiedthattheKVPsinquestion
purportedlyhavingbeenissuedfromMachhrualit PostOfficer
werenotactuallyissuedfromthesaidpostoffice.
120.
PW14 Sh. M. D. Verma was the Sub Post Master at
CharbaghPostOffice,DistrictLucknowfromFebruary1998till
31.7.2002. Heprovedthestockregisterofhispostofficeand
testifiedthatKVPsinquestionpurportedlyissuedfromthispost
officewereactuallynotissuedfromthispostoffice.
121.
PW15Sh.PritamSingh wasthePostMaster,Jind. He
provedthestockregisterofJindHeadPostOfficeandtestified
that KVPs purportedly were issued from Jind Post Office but
CCNo.19/2009Page49/121
actuallywerenotissuedfromthesaidPostOffice.
122.
PW16 Sh. S. J. Mahajan was the Sub Post Master at
Balapur Post office, District Akola, Maharashtra. He also

testifiedthatonebranchofthispostofficeissituatedinvillage
Batwadi.HetestifiedthattheseKVPscouldnotbeissuedfrom
Batwadipostofficebecauseitisonlyabranchpostofficeandis
notauthorizedtoissueKVPs.
123.
PW17Sh.ChanderBhan (Iamnotinclinedtodiscuss
this witness because he is concerned with accused Rohtash

Kanwar (A4), who has already been convicted on his plea of
guilt).
124.
PW18Sh.G.S.Yadav waspostedasPRIPintheDHQ
PostOffice,NewDelhi. Apartfromprovingvariousletters,he
provedhisreportsinrespectoftheverificationofthenamesand
addressesofthepersons,whowerepurportedlytheholdersof
theKVPsinquestion.
125.
PW19Sh.ChhitarmalVermawasSeniorSuperintendent
ofPostOfficesSouthDivision,NewDelhi. Heprovedvarious
lettersincludingtheletterssenttodifferentpostoffices.
126.
PW20Sh.DharamPal wasthetenantofaccusedH.N.
Pal (A6) and proved the ration card and photographs of this
accused.
CCNo.19/2009Page50/121
127.
PW21Sh.S.N.Bhardwaj,AssistantPostMastertestified
thatitwasincumbentuponthestafftotallytheKVPsbrought
for encashment with the particulars of the lost/stolen KVPs
mentionedinthecircularbutduetoacuteshortageofstaff,it
wasnotpracticallypossibletocrosscheckdetailsoftheKVPs.
128.
PW22Sh.GovindSinghRattanThakur,Superintendent
ofRMS,LDivision,Bhusawal,DistrictJalGaon,Maharashtra.
HetestifiedthattheKVPsinquetionwerenotissuedfromthe
post offices namely Hata Branch Post Office or Batwadi Post
office.
129.
PW23Mohd.AnwartestifiedthatoneRameshhadgiven
him1000KVPsofdenominationofRs.10,000/eachandthat
heusedtosellthemforaprofittooneD.B.Singh.
130.
PW24 Sh. Roshan Lal Yadav is the Inspector, CBI. He
tookspecimensignaturesofaccusedK.M.Singh(A1)andH.N.
Pal(A6).
131.
PW25 Sh. Ramesh Kumar @ Netaji testified that he
purchasedtheKVPsfromoneRanjitandhadsoldthesameto
oneAnwar.
132.
PW26Sh.S.Balasubhramaniam,DeputySuperintendent
ofPolice,CBI.HetookspecimensignaturesofaccusedLaxman
Prasad (A3) at the instructions of the Investigation Officer in
CCNo.19/2009Page51/121
presenceofindependentwitnessnamelyLaxmiNarayan.
133.
PW27 Sh. Nand Kishore Joshi testified that Lala Ram
BhartiwaspostedasPostalAssistantinLodhiRoad,PostOfice
andthathe(PW27)wasapostmaninthesaidPostOffice.He
testifiedthatwhilehewasperformingdutiesinthestockroom
ofthePostOffice,whereNSCs,KVPsetc.usedtobekept,inthe
year1996Sh.LalaRamBhartiapproachedhimfordeliveryof
somepaperidentityslips. Athisrequestheprovidedhimthe
loosesheetsofdefectiveidentityslipslyinginthestockroom.
PW27 testified against that Sh. Lala Ram Bharti visited him
againstafteronemonthandfurtheraskedfortheidentitypaper
bookletbuthe(PW27)refusedtogivehimtheidentityslips.
134.
PW28 Sh. Mahender Pal Sharma testified that K. M.
Singh (A1) had purchased the flat from him and had also
purchasedjewelleryfromhisnephew.
135.
PW29 Sh. Devender Kumar testified that in the year
1996hewaspostedasChowkidaratDadriPostOffice.Inthe
monthofNovember1996,oneRamNiwasintroducedhimwith
onepersoncalled'Neta'.Theymethimtohaveadrinkandon
drinking the wine, his health deteriorated. Thereafter Netaji
askedforthekeysofthePostOffices.Keysweretakenoutfrom
his pocket. They were asking about the date stamps. He
CCNo.19/2009Page52/121
testifiedthatboththepersonswentinsidethehallandatthe
timeofleavingmainhallofthepostoffice,theyaskedhimnot
to disclose this incident. He testified that they were holding
bundlesrappedinthenewspapers.Onnextday,hebroughtthe
incidenttothenoticeofPostMaster.OninquiryfromthePost
Master he told that nothing was stolen. He testified that he
foundonestamplyinginopengroundafterthosepersonshad
leftpostoffice.2or3stampswerelyingscatteredpositionnear
thebox.
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
supporttheprosecutioncase.
137.
PW31Sh.JanardhanSinghtestifiedthatacircularofthe
theft/lostKVPswasissuedintheofficeofSeniorSuperintendent
PostOfficeandthereaftersenttoallthePostOffices.
138.
PW32 Sh. Alok Pande was posted as Senior
SuperintendentofPostOffice,Delhi. HetestifiedthatinJuly
1998,oneKadamSinghASPOinformedhimontelephonethat
hehadcheckedtherecordsofMangolPuriPostOfficeandhe
suspectedsomethingfishy. Hesoughtpermissiontocheckthe
records,whichaccountingofficeoftheMangolPuriPostOffice.
CCNo.19/2009Page53/121
He also went to Ashok Vihar Post Office. After checking the

records, Kadam Singh reported the encashment of lost KVPs.
AccordinglyFIRwaslodgedwithPSMangolPuri.
139.
PW33Sh.H.C.SharmaisAddl.S.P.inAntiCorruption
branch,CBI.HetestifiedthatheremainedpostedasInspector
CBI,NewDelhifromJune1997toApril2003andhewasthe
InvestigationOfficerofacaseRC4(E)/98/BS &FC/DLI. He
testifiedthatduringthecourseofthisinvestigation,heseized
FIR No. 29/98 from Girinder Mohan, Inspector GRPF, Patna,
whichrelatedtothetheftofKVPsbelongingto46CCseries.
140.
PW34Sh.AjayKumarGautam testifiedthatintheyear
1999,hewasrunningshorkshopinthenameandstyleofM/s
PappuMotors,Sector12,VijayNagar,Ghaziabad. Hegotan
informationaboutanaccidentofavehiclehavingtakenplace
near Hindon River bypass. He rushed to the spot. The
conditionofthevehiclewasdeterioratedandnobodywasfound
present near the vehicle. Thereafter the said vehicle was
broughtathisworkshop.Afterwaitingfortwodays,hestarted
thejobofdenting.After5or7dayssomeCBIofficialscameto
hisworkshopandaskedastowhythisvehiclereachedinhis
workshop.Awritteninstructionwasgiventohimnottodeliver
thevehicletoanyone.Thewitnesswasdeclaredhostile.Inthe
CCNo.19/2009Page54/121
cross examination by Ld. Public Prosecutor, he admitted that

CBImadeinquiriesfromhiminrespectofvehicleno.DL3CF
0838 but he denied that he knew accused K. M. Singh (A1).
However he admitted that the vehicle is still lying in his
workshopandcolourofthevehiclehadbeenchangedtolight
green.
141.
PW35Sh.RamKumarPaliwalturnedhostileandstated
thataccusedK.M.Singh(A1)nevermethiminJune1996for
arranging identity slips booklet. In cross examination by Ld.
PublicProsecutor,headmittedthathisstatementwasrecorded
byCBIon18.8.1999.
142.
PW36Sh.YamunaPrasadPandeywasASPintheoffice
ofSuperintendentPostOffice.HeremainedassociatedwithSh.
Kadam Singh in respect of the inquiries about the fraudulent
encashmentoftheKVPs.
143.
PW37Dr.R.Sharma,thehandwritingexpertprovedhis
opinion.
144.
PW38Sh.NareshPrashadtestifiedthatintheyear1999,
hewaspullingrickshawinPatna. Hetestifiedthatheknows
Bharat,RameshandBengali.HetestifiedthatBharattookhim
totheshopofRamesh.Theyaskedhimtotakesomepapersto
Ramesh.Thesaidpaperswereofredcolour. BharatgaveRs.
CCNo.19/2009Page55/121
200/tohimasfare.
145.
PW39InspectorV.K.PandeyistheInvestigatingOfficer
ofthiscase.
146.
Statements under Section 313 CrPC of all the accused
personswererecorded. Thiscourtalsoexaminedonewitness
namelySh.GyaneshKumarJainunderSection311CrPC.
147.
In defence accused Satish Pal Singh (A7) & Laxman
Prasad (A3) have examined DW1 Sh. Syed Faizal Huda as a

defencewitness.Afterobtainingpermissionfromthiscourt,he
had randomly taken photographs of disputed & specimen
handwritingfromthejudicialfileandthereafterexaminedthe
disputedwriting/signatureswithspecimenwriting/signaturesof
SatishPalSingh(A7)andLaxmanPrasad(A3).Heprovedthe
reportasEx.DW1/AinrespectofaccusedSatishPalSingh(A7)
andthereportEx.DW1/CinrespectofaccusedLaxmanPrasad
(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,CCNo.1/10). Inviewofthedenialofgivingspecimen
CCNo.19/2009Page56/121
signaturesbytheaccusedSohanPalSharma(A2)inthiscase,I
deemed it appropriate to examine Sh. Gyanesh Kumar Jain
underSection311CrPC.Hetestifiedthathehadwitnessedthe
takingofspecimensignatures/handwritingsofaccusedSatish
PalSingh(A7)andSohanPalSharma(A2).
148.
ItisnecessarytomentionherethatAccusedAlwarSingh
(A8) died on 10.2.2011 and proceedings against him abated

videorderdated28.3.2011.AccusedHarishChander(A5)was
discharged vide order dated 31.5.2003 and accused Rohtash
Kanwar (A4) was convicted on 11.11.2010 on his voluntarily
pleadingguilty.
149.
Beforediscussingtheroleofeachaccused,Iwouldpoint
thatPW9DineshChandSharma,theAssistantSuperintendent
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
provedthattheKVPsinquestionhavenotbeenissuedfromthe
postofficesnamelyCharBaghLucknow,JindHeadPostOffice,
Rajaji Puram Lucknow Post Office, Machhrauli Post Office,
KarnalHeadPostOffice, RajKishoreRajkotPostOffice,Hata
Post Office and Batwadi Akola Post Office. The KVPs
fraudulentlyencashedfromHariNagarAshramPostOfficewere
CCNo.19/2009Page57/121
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
aforesaidpostoffices.Thereforeitisnotindisputethatforged
stampsofthesaidpostofficeshavebeenaffixedontheseKVPs,
whichwereencashedinHariNagarAshramPostOffice.
NowItakeupthecaseofeachaccusedseparatelyas
under:
KrishanMadhawaSingh(A1)
150.
As per charge sheet, this accused was one of the main
conspiratorsinthepresentcase.ItisallegedthataccusedK.M.
Singh(A1)andH.N.Pal@Neta(A6)hadprocuredstolenKVPs
fromAfzalSiddiquiandShehzadaSiddiquiebasedinLucknow.
They had also obtained the identity slip booklets from Lodhi
RoadHeadPostOffice,NewDelhi.ItisallegedthataccusedK.
M.Singh(A1)andSatishPalSingh(A7)hadworkedtogether
atJungpuraPostOfficeandwereknowntoeachother.When
accused Satish Pal Singh Singh (A7) was transferred to Hari
NagarAshrmaPostOffice,accusedK.M.Singh(A1),H.N.Pal
(A6) and Sohan Pal Sharma (A2) met him and hatched the
conspiracytoencashthestolenKVPSbyforgingtheverification
reportsonNC32formsofissuingpostoffices.Itisallegedthat
CCNo.19/2009Page58/121
accused Satish Pal Singh (A7) was asked to intercepted the

NC32formsandhandthemtoK.M.Singh(A1)andotherco
accusedpersons,whoafterforgingtheverificationreportwould
againhandovertheseformstoaccusedSatishPalSingh(A7).
ItisallegedthataccusedSatishPalSingh(A7)signedoneight
NC32formsandalsoputastampofHariNagarAshramPost
OfficeandgavethemtoaccusedK.M.Singh(A1)forgetting
forgedverificationreport purportedtohave beenissuedfrom
other post offices. It is alleged that these NC32 forms were
pointingout.FurtheritisallegedthataccusedK.M.Singh(A1)
and H. N. Pal (A6) got prepared round seals/stamps, which
wereusedtoforgedtheKVPs.
151.
ProsecutionhasexaminedPW6SunilKrishanNagar,who
hastestifiedthataccusedK.M.Singh(A1)andH.N.Pal(A6)
has come to his shop and got the designs of the stamps of
variouspostofficesprepared.PW39InspectorV.K.Pandeyhas
testified that he had recorded the disclosure statement of
accused K. M. Singh on 24.6.1999, 27.6.1999 and 3.7.1999
collectivelyexhibitedas Ex.PW39/A39. Itisfurthertestified
that during the course of investigation, on pointing out of
accused K. M. Singh (A1), 8 NC32 forms (D40 collectively
CCNo.19/2009Page59/121
marked as Ex.PW39/A44) bearing the signatures of Ashok

GuptaandSudhaGupta,bearingthestampimpressionofpost
office Hari Nagar Ashram, New Delhi dated 22.6.99 were
recovered from the blue colour Zen Maruti card, which were
lyingunderthemattressbeneathdriverseatinthepresenceof
independent witnesses. All these NC32 forms were lying
wrappedinthenewspapers.Thesewererecoveredvidememo
Ex.PW39/A38. It is pertinent to note that pursuant to
disclosurestatementofaccusedK.M.SinghCBIhadfoundthis
carintheworkshopofAjayKumarGautam(PW34).Pursuant
tohisdisclosurestatementaccusedK.M.Singh(A1)tookthe
InvestigatingOfficertothecarandasperthe Ex.PW39/A38,
the8NC32formsweretakenout,whichwerelyingunderthe
mattress beneath the driver seat of Maruti Zen Car. The
InvestigatingOfficerPW39hastestifiedthatduringthecourse
ofinvestigationthecarbearingno.DL3SF0838wasgivenon
superdari to Ajay Kumar Gautam vide superdaginama
Ex.PW36/A41 dated 11.1.2000 in CC No. 7/09 on the
applicationmovedbyaccusedK.M.Singh. Itissubmittedby
Ld. Public Prosecutor that in this application accused K. M.
Singhhadprayedthathisvehicleshouldbegivenonsuperdari
toSh.AjayKumarGautam. Ld.PublicProsecutorhasdrawn
CCNo.19/2009Page60/121
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.
ThisfactwasputtotheaccusedK.M.Singhinquestionno.312
inhisstatementunderSection313CrPCandhehasnotdenied
thisfact.
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
signaturesoftheholder,therearesignaturesofAshokGuptain
English and SudhaGupta inHindi. On these 8 NC32forms,
accusedSatishPalSinghhaswrittenfortransferincapacityof
postalassistant.AsperthereportofPW37Dr.R.Sharma,the
writingfor transfer in redpen is that of accused Satish Pal
Singh. IwilldiscussthereportofPW37Dr.R.Sharmawhile
discussingtheroleofaccusedSatishPalSingh.Sufficeittosay
thatthehandwritingofSatishPalSinghonthese8KVPsinhis
officialcapacitystandproved.
153.
ItisarguedthattheseKVPshavebeenplantedandthat
thequestionofthese8KVPswasconsideredinotherthreecases
of KVPs scam namely CC No. 13/2008 pertaining to the
fraudulentofencashmentofKVPsinEasternCourtPostOffice,
CCNo.19/2009Page61/121
CCNo.7/2009pertainingtoMangolPuriPostOfficeandCC
No.1/2010pertainingtoNirankariColonyPostOffice.Accused
K.M.Singhhasfiledthecopiesofthesaidjudgementsandon
perusingthesame,IwouldsaythatrecoveringoftheseEight
NC32formswasnotarelevantfactinthosecases.Thosecases
pertainedtotheotherpostofficesandnottothepostofficeHari
NagarAshram,whereastheseNC32formshavebeenconnected
by the prosecution with the conspiracy in the present case
pertaining to Post Office Hari Nagar Ashram. Therefore the
acquittalofaccusedK.M.Singhinthosecaseswillnotaffect
thiscase.
154.
Ld.PublicProsecutorsubmitsthataccusedK.M.singhhad
madedisclosurestatementdated3.7.1999inrespectofNC32
formsandstatedthathecangetitrecoveredfromhisMaruti
ZenCar. Ld.PublicProsecutorhasdrawnmyattentiontothe
disclosure statement dated 27.6.1999 in which accused K. M.
Singh had disclosed that he had purchased Maruti Zen
DL3CF0838fromoneTyagiofUttamNagarthroughH.N.Pal
andthatthevehiclewasnottransferredinhisnameandthatit
had met with an accident and that now the car was under
repairsinaworkshopcalledPappuMotors.Itissubmittedby
Ld.PublicProsecutorthatpursuanttothisdisclosurestatement
CCNo.19/2009Page62/121
Investigating Officer V. K. Pandey along with accused K. M.

Singh went to the service station on 27.6.1999 andmetAjay
KumarGautam,proprietorofthisworkshopanddirectedhim
nottodeliverthevehicletoanyotherperson.
155.
Ld. Public Prosecutor has drawn my attention to the
disclosurestatementdated3.7.1999ofaccusedK.M.Singhin
whichhedisclosedthaton23.6.1999hemadeatelephoniccall
toaccusedSatish inpostofficeandinquiredabout theNC32
forms. AccusedSatishtoldhimthatthesamewerereadyand
thereafteratabout10:30pmaccusedSatishhandedoverthose
NC32forms. AccusedK.M.SinghdisclosedthattheseNC32
formshavebeenplacedbyhimunderthemattressbeneaththe
driving seat of the Maruti Zen Car. Ld. Public Prosecutor
submitsthatalthoughthiscarwassearchedon27.6.1999atthe
workshopofAjayKumarGautambuttheseNC32formscould
notbetracedbecausethesamewereplacedunderthemattress
beneaththedrivingseat.AccordinglyinthepresenceofSh.M.
M.Sharma, anofficialofStateBankofIndia,CGOComplex,
LodhiRoad,accusedK.M.Singhtookthemtothebluecolour
Maruti zen car and got the NC32 forms recovered. It is
submitted by Ld. Public Prosecutor that accused K. M. Singh
movedanapplicationforreleaseofthisMaruticaronsuperdari.
CCNo.19/2009Page63/121
SincetheInvestigatingOfficerhadnotyetseizedthisvehicle,
therefore the vehicle was seized by Investigating Officer on
16.1.2000 and thereafter its custody was given to the garage
ownernamelyPappui.e.AjayKumarGautamontheapplication
of accused K. M. Singh. Although the complete details as
submitted by Ld. Public Prosecutor have not given in the
evidencebutprosecutionhasprovedbyexaminingPW34Ajay
KumarGautam,theproprietorofPappuMotorsthatthevehicle
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
drivingseatofthecarinpresenceofaindependentwitness. I
maypointoutthatthese8NC32formswerefoundwrappedin
anewspapers Ex.PW39/A45. Thisnewspapersisofthedate
31.5.1999. Note is taken of the fact that the fraudulent
encashment of the KVPsfrom Hari NagarAshram Post Office
continuedduringtheperiodfrom2.6.1998to18.6.1999.Imay
refer to the SO Journal of this post office Ex.PW37/118
preparedbySubPostMasterAlwarSinghon18.6.1999. The
SO Journal is a composite sheet of the KVPs discharged and
paymentsmade.ThissheetmentionstheKVPs46CC855831to
855860, which were discharged by the Sub Post Master Hari
CCNo.19/2009Page64/121
NagarAshram. AperusaloftheseKVPs(collectivelyexhibited
as Ex.PW33/110) also show that these were discharged on
18.6.1999.ThereforethestampontheNC32formsofthedate
22.6.1999 makes it clear that the accused K. M. Singh and
Satish Pal Singh (along with Rohtash Kanwar A4, already
convicted)werethicklyintothisconspiracyevenjustbeforethe
arrestofaccusedK.M.Singhwhichtookplaceon24.6.1999.
RegardingRohtashKanwar,Iwouldonlymentionthatasper
GEQD report, he was the person who had signed as Ramesh
Sharma, purportedly the holder of these KVPs, and had
encashedtheaforesaidKVPs. Hehadpleadedguiltyandhas
alreadybeenconvicted.
156.
RegardingtheallegationofplantingoftheNC32forms,I
would say that as per testimony of PW39, the recovery was

made vide memo Ex.PW39/A38 at the disclosure and the
pointingofaccusedK.M.Singh.Thisrecoverymemobearsthe
signaturesofaccusedK.M.SinghatpointBandrecoverywas
effectedinpresenceofanindependentwitnessnamelyM.M.
SharmaanemployeeofStateBankofIndia. Itispertinentto
notethatalltheeightNC32formsaswellasthenewspaperhas
been signed by accused K. M. Singh with the date 3.7.1999.
Accusedhasnotbeenabletoconvincethiscourtastohowhis
CCNo.19/2009Page65/121
signatures dated 3.7.1999 are available on them. These

signatures support the prosecution case that these were
recoveredattheinstanceofaaccusedK.M.Singhasatokenof
which,hehadputhissignaturesontherecoverymemoaswell
asontheNC32formsandthenewspaper.ThereforeIhaveno
reasontodisbelievethetestimonyofInvestigatingOfficerinthis
regard. Ld.PublicProsecutorhassubmittedthathadtheCBI
wantedtoplantadocument,theycouldhaveevenplantedthe
documents upon him in other three cases in which he was
acquittedbythecourt.ItissubmittedthatCBIcouldevenhave
showntherecoveryoftheseformsfromthehouseorfromthe
personofaccusedK.M.Singh. ButthiswasnotdoneasCBI
neverresortstosuchpractices.Iagreewiththesubmissionsof
Ld. Public Prosecutor. Accordingly, the prosecution has been
abletoprovebeyonddoubtfollowingfactsagainstaccusedK.
M.Singh:
(1) His disclosure whereby he disclosed the names of other
conspiratorsnamelyA1toA8.
(2) PW6provedthat accusedK. M.Singhgotthreeorfour
designsofvariouspostofficesprepared. AccusedK.M.Singh
doesnotexplainastoforwhatpurposehegotpreparedthese
designsofstamps.
CCNo.19/2009Page66/121
(3) PursuanttodisclosureofK.M.Singh,eightNC32forms
wererecoveredbyI.O.
What is the effect of all these circumstances, would be
discussed by me after discussing the role of Satish Pal Singh

(A7).
SatishPalSingh(A7)
157.
Satish Pal Singh has assailed the sanction order to
prosecutehim.ImaypointoutthatPW4Dr.D.VeenaKumari
hadaccordedsanctionunderSection19(1)(C)ofPreventionof
CorruptionActforprosecutingaccusedSatishPalSingh. Itis
submittedthatPW4wasnotcompetenttoremovehimandthat
nodocumenthasbeenprovedbyprosecutiontoplaceonrecord
her competency to accord sanction under Section 19 of
PreventionofCorruptionAct.Idisagreewiththissubmission.
PW4hastestifiedthatshewaspostedasSeniorSuperintendent
ofPostOffice,NewDelhi,SouthDistrictandaccusedSatishPal
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
suggestionthatshewasnotcompetenttoaccordsanctionunder
Section19ofP.C.Act. AccusedSatishPalSinghhasalsonot
brought any evidence in defence to show as to who was
CCNo.19/2009Page67/121
competenttoremovehimfromserviceortoaccordsanction.In
view of clear unrebutted assertion of PW4 that she was
competenttoremovehimfromtheservice,ithastobeaccepted
thatshewascompetenttoaccordsanction.
158.
It is argued that the request letter sent by CBI to the
sanctioningauthorityhasnotbeenproved. Thereforeitisnot
brought on record by the prosecution as to what documents
weresentbyCBItoPW4forherperusal. Inabsenceofthis
requestletter,itisargued,ithastobepresumedthatneither
therewasanyrequestletternoranydocumentsweresentand
thereforesanctioningauthorityaccordedthesanctiononadraft
of sanction without examining the factual correctness of the
actualdocuments.Idisagreewiththissubmission.InStateof
KarnatakaVsAameerJan(2007)11SupremeCourtCases
273, it is held that the order granting sanction must be
demonstrative of the facts that there had been proper
applicationofmindonpartofsanctioningauthority. Ihave
perusedthisjudgement,citedbytheaccused,andIfindthatthe
sanctioning authority had accorded the sanction simply on a
reportandnomaterialcollectedagainsttheaccusedwasplaced
beforethesanctioningauthorityandthereforeitwasheldthat
the sanction suffered from non application of mind. On the
CCNo.19/2009Page68/121
otherhandinthepresentcase,thesanctionorder Ex.PW4/A.
Thesanctionordermentionsthefactofthecaseandinpara19
ofthisordershehasspecificallystatedastowhatmaterialwas
examinedbyherbeforeaccordingthesanction. Irefertoher
testimonybeforethiscourtinwhichshehasstatedthatshehad
accordedthesanctionaftercarefulexaminationofthematerial
includingthestatementsofwitnessrecordedunderSection
161 and 164 CrPC and documents collected by the
InvestigatingOfficer,whichhadbeenplacedbeforeherwith
regardtoallegationsandcircumstancesofthecase.Incross
examinationbyaccusedSatishPalSingh,shetestifiesthat if
NC32formbearingthestampofpostofficeandsignatures
ofconcernedofficialofpostaldepartmentisthere,itmeans
thattheformhasgonethroughthatparticularemployeeof
the postal department. I had seen the documents before
granting sanction though I do not recollect what those
documentswere. Thistestimonyshowsthatatthetimeof
according sanction, she was fully conscious of the facts and
documents which are appearing against accused Satish Pal
Singh.ThereforeIdonotfindanydefectinthesanctionorder.
159.
TheaccusedSatishPalSinghhasarguedthattheexpert
report Ex.PW15/1 andreasoningEx.PW15/3 arenotavailable

CCNo.19/2009Page69/121
inthisfileandeventruecopiesarenotplacedonthejudicial
file. It is submitted by Ld. Public Prosecutor that a large
numberofKVPsweregotencashedfromdifferentpostoffices
with the active collusion of the postal officials. Therefore
initiallythehandwritingofallthesuspectsweretakenandsent
forcomparisontoGEQD.Whenthereportcame,thecaseswere
filed post office wise. But there is a common GEQD report
relevanttoallthecases.Thisreporthasbeenmentionedinlist
of documentsof each case includingthe present one andthe
copy of the same was also supplied to each accused. It is
pertinenttonotethatPW37provedtheaforesaidreportsinthe
courtinthiscaseandaccusednotonlycrossexaminedhimon
thisreport/opinion/reasoningbutalsoexaminedahandwriting
expertinhisdefence.ThereforethereportsofGEQDhadbeen
thesubjectmatterofthistrialandwerehotlycontested.Though
Iagreethatitwouldhavebeenmoreconvenientforthepurpose
oftrialtoplaceacopyofthesereportsonthisfileanditcould
havebeengivenadifferentexhibitnumber. Evenifitisnot
done,thesaidreportsstandprovedandhavetobeconsidered
bythiscourt.
160.
Accusedhastakenthepleathataspertheprosecution,the
questioneddocumentsandstandardhandwritingsweresentto
CCNo.19/2009Page70/121
GEQDShimla,whereasthesignaturesofDr.R.Sharma(PW37)
showthathehadsignedthesameinChandigarhon20.7.2001.
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
GEQDCFIissituatedinShimlaanditsonebranchissituatedin
Chandigarh and court can take judicial notice of this fact. I
haveperusedthereportandIfindthatthereportEx.PW15/1is
preparedontheletterheadofGEQD,CentralForensicInstitute,
GovernmentofIndia,ShimlabutithadbeensignedbyPW37at
Chandigarh. Itakejudicialnoticeofthisfactthatthebranch
office of GEQD, Shimla is situated at Chandigarh. Here the
question is not as to at which office the documents were
examined.Thequestionbeforethiscourtisthatastowhether
theopinionofprosecutionexpertiscorrectornot.
161.
Asdiscussedaboveitstandsprovedthatthe8NC32forms
wererecoveredfromthecarofaccusedK.M.Singh(A1)athis
instanceandpursuanttohisdisclosure.Asperchargesheet,in
furtherance of criminal conspiracy, accused K. M. Singh (A1)
directedaccusedSatishPalSinghthataccusedRohtashKanwar
wouldreachHariNagarAshramPostOfficeforencashmentof
KVPs.AccusedSatishPalSinghinformedhimthatpostmaster
CCNo.19/2009Page71/121
AlwarSinghwasgoingfortrainingtoSaharanpurandtherefore
hewouldsendRohtashKanwaronthesameday. Actuallyas
perthedirectionofaccusedK.M.Singh(A1),accusedRohtash
KanwarwenttoHariNagarAshramPostOfficeandpresented
thestolen/forgedKVPstothetuneofRs.1lacforencashment.
AccusedAlwarSinghonseeingtheKVPsaskedaccusedSatish
Pal Singh to send NC32 forms to the issuing post office and
verify the particulars and himself went on training to
Saharanpur. ItisallegedthataccusedSatishPal Singhin
furtheranceofcriminalconspiracywrotefortransferon8
NC32formsandalsoputthestampofHariNagarAshram
PostOfficeandgavethemtoaccusedK.M.Singh(A1)for
getting the verification forged. These NC32 forms were
pointingout.
162.
These 8 NC32 forms (collectively exhibited as
Ex.PW39/A44)werewrappedinanewspapersEx.PW39/A45
andwereplacedunderthemattressbeneaththedrivingseatof
thebluecolourZenMaruticarattheinstanceofaccusedK.M.
Singh(A1)vidememoEx.PW39/A38.OntheseNC32forms,
thewordsfortransferarewritteninredpenandbeneathit
thereareinitialsinredpen.Thishandwritingandinitialisat
CCNo.19/2009Page72/121
Q1871,Q1876,Q1881,Q1886,Q1894,Q1890,Q1903and
Q1898.Oneachoftheforms,theroundstampofHariNagar
AshramPostOfficeisaffixedandthestampofsubpostmaster
withaninitialisalsofixed.Ontheinitialsofthesubpostmaster
adate22.6.1999iswritten. Intheroundstampalsothedate
22.6.1999isvisible. Asperthereportofhandwritingexpert
Ex.PW15/A(onpage28),itiswrittenthatabovestatednoted
questioned writings have been written by the same person
whosespecimenhandwritingisfoundonS515,S536toS539
and S541 to S545. These specimen hand writings are
Ex.PW39/A3(D124)andpertainstoaccusedSatishPalSingh
andthesamehavebeentakeninpresenceofanindependent
witness namely Sh. Gyanesh Kumar Jain. (examined by this
courtunderSection311CrPC)
163.
As per charge sheet, in his disclosure statement dated
27.6.1999 accused K. M. Singh (A1) stated that he had

purchasedoneMarutiCarNo.DL3CF0838fromoneTyagiof
UttamNagarandthatthevehiclehasnotbeentransferredinhis
nameandthatthisvehiclemetwithanaccidentandwasunder
repairinaworkshopcalledPappuMotors. Inthisdisclosure
statement,hehasalsodisclosedthenameofSatishPalSingh.
In his disclosure statement dated 3.6.1999, he disclosed that
CCNo.19/2009Page73/121
accusedSatishPalSinghhandedovertohimNC32formsand
hekeptthesameunderthemattressbeneaththedrivingseatof
blue colour Maruti Zen car. At his instance, the said NC32
formsweretakenoutfromthesaidvehicle.Asperprosecution
caseform32arerequiredwhenKVPsaretobetransferredfrom
onepostofficetoanotherpostoffice.AsperRule37(1)ofPost
OfficeSavingBankManualVolumeII,whenanapplicationfor
transfer of a certificate in the prescribed form (NC32) is
receivedinanofficeforregistrationeitherdirectorthroughthe
officetowhichtransferisdesired,thepostmasteroftheoffice
ofregistrationmustsatisfyhimselfthatcertificatesoughttobe
transferredactuallystandsinapplicant'sname........Therefore
itisallegedthataccusedSatishPalsinghfacilitatedandactedin
conspiracywithaccusedK.M.Singh(A1)byhandinghimover
theblank form 32afterwritingfortransferandputting his
initials beneath it. It is pertinent to note that these 8 NC32
formsbearthestampofsubpostmasterandhisinitialsaswell
asastampofHariNagarAshramPostOfficebearingthedate
22.6.1999. The remaining columns which should contain
particularsofKVPsetc.areblank.
164.
NowItakeupthereportofGEQDaswellastheopinion
oftheexpertwitnessnamelyDW1SyedFaizalHudaexamined
CCNo.19/2009Page74/121
byaccusedSatishPalSingh. Thedefencewitnesshasproved
hisopinionasEx.DW1/A.Heprovedtheenlargedphotographs
of the disputed signatures and specimen signatures as
Ex.DW1/B. Hehasopinedthatthedisputedwritingandthe
signatures and the specimen writing/signatures (of accused
SatishPalSingh)havebeenwrittenbydifferentpersons.Ihave
perusedhisopinion.Hehasobservedthatspecimensignatures
have been written fluently in a graceful manner and show
superiordegreeofpenmanship.Similarlyhehasconsideredthe
alignment, slant and natural variations and the proportion of
lettersincludingthespacingbetweentheletters.Idisagreewith
his opinion on the aforesaid points because perusal of the
specimen hand writing/signatures and the disputed hand
writing/signaturesshowsequaldegreeofpenmanshipandIdo
not find any difference in alignment, slant, natural variations
andproportionsoftheletters. NowItakeuphisopinionon
individualcharacteristics,whichisreproducedasunder:
INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTICS OF
WRITINGS (for Transfer): Formation of
individuallettersofthedisputedwritingsshows
fundamentaldifferenceswiththeformationof
individual letters of specimen writings in the
followingmanner:
a)
Letterf:Inwordfor,thebeginning
stroke is extended and the formation of
CCNo.19/2009Page75/121
triangular loop is prominent in specimen
writing(e.g.S515,S536)butnotindisputed
writings (Q1881, Q1886), demonstrated at
pointaontheenlargedphotographs.
Inwordfourletterfmakesroundedtopin
disputed writings (Q1898, Q1903) whereas
loop formation in specimen (S536, S515,
S537)writingsand suggestthedissimilarities
ofindividualhabits,demonstratedatpointaon
theenlargedphotographs.
Inwordtransferletterfistendedtowards
the left side in disputed writings (Q1890,
Q1894)whereasitisverticallyplacedtotend
towards the right side in specimen writings
(S538,S522)demonstratedatpointaonthe
enlargedphotographs.
b)
Letter o: It is written in fully
developed manner and style of formation in
specimenwritings(e.g.S515,S536)butnot
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)
LetterT:ThebarofletterTismore
rounded instyleindisputedwritings(Q1890,
q1894)ascomparedtothespecimenwritings,
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
Transferinspecimenwritings(S538,S522)
whichisnotprominentinthedisputedwritings
CCNo.19/2009Page76/121
(Q1898,Q1903),demonstratedatpoint e on
f)
Terminal stroke of letter r of word
Transfer goesupwardlyindisputedwritings
(e.g. Q1871, Q1876) but horizontally in
specimen writings (e.g. S515, S542) and
suggest the different individual habits of the
writers.
165.
NowIreproducetherelevantGEQDopinion Ex.PW15/3
inthisregardasunder:
My opinion that the writings in the

enclosedportionsstampedandmarkedQ1871,
Q1876, Q1881, Q1886, Q1890, Q1894,
Q1898, Q1903; S515, S536 to S539 and
S541toS545havebeenwrittenbyoneand
thesameperson,isbaseduponthecumulative
considerations of the similarities both in the
generalandindividualwritinghabitsoccurring
inthem.
Inter se comparison of the standard

writings reveals that they are freely written,
show natural variations and have inter
consistencyamongthemselves.Thequestioned
writings also exhibit these qualities similarly.
Theyalsoagreeinthegeneralwritinghabitsof
movement, skill, speed, alignment, spacing,
relativesizeand proportionofthelettersand
theircombination,nature of commencingand
terminal stroke, simplification etc. Both
questionedandstandardwritingsalsoagreein
the minute and inconspicuous details of
formation of letters and their combinations,
some of such similarities in the individual
writinghabitsare:mannerofexecutionofletter
'f'withthenatureofstart;natureandlocation
CCNo.19/2009Page77/121
of upper body part as well as nature and
location of downward stroke with similar
variation;natureandmanneroflinkingletters
'o'and'r',executionofletter'T'withthenature
andlocationofhorizontalandverticalstroke;
nature and location of next succeeding
characterandmannerofconnectingwithnext
succeeding character with similar variation
observed tobesimilarwithsimilarvariation;
mannerofexecutionofletter's'withthenature
andlocationofupperandlowerbodypartand
mannerofjoiningitsterminalstrokewithletter
'f';natureandlocationofthecommencement,
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
questionedandstandard.
All the significant features as occurring

in the questioned writings are found similar
exemplified at one or the other place in the
standardwritings.
There is no divergence between

questionedandstandardwritingsandthereis
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
collectivelyleadmetotheaforesaidopinionof
commonauthorship.
166.
With a view to assess the aforesaid opinion, I have
perused the enlarged photographs of the questioned and

CCNo.19/2009Page78/121
disputedhandwritingsfiledbyDW1inthecourtandwhichare
exhibitedasEx.DW1/B.Onseeingtheseenlargedphotographs,
therecannotbetwoopinionsthatthesamehavebeenwritten
byoneandthesameperson.Theformationsof'f','r','T','s'are
similarandIhavenodoubtabouttheaccuracyoftheopinion
givenbythePW37Dr.R.Sharma. Accordinglytheopinionof
thedefenceexpertwitnesshastoberejected. Iwouldliketo
reproduce the cross examination of PW37 by Ld. Counsel of
accusedSatishPalSinghasunder:
Q.
I draw your attention to questioned
documentno.1898and1903,inwhichstarting
f is different from starting f inquestioned
writing1890,1894.Isitcorrect?
Ans. It is correct. Vol. the same habit of
writingletterfisalsoappearinginspecimen
writings.
Q.
Isitcorrectthatinviewoftheaforesaid
difference in letter f, it would be correct to
saythatbothwerewrittenbytwopersons?
Ans. Itiscorrect.
Q.
Do you find difference of alignment
between questioned as well as specimen
writings?
Ans. Idonotfindanydifference.
Q.
I suggest that in question writing no.
1898, there is ascending alignment, whereas
thesameisnotinspecimenwriting. Whatdo
youwanttosay?
Ans. It is correct that there is ascending
alignment in questioned writing no. 1898. I
want to explain that in other questioned
CCNo.19/2009Page79/121
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
smallvariationbutinallspecimenwritingsthe
alignmentisstraight?
Ans. Itiscorrectthatinquestionwritingthere
isascendingalignmentswithvariationsbutin
all specimen writing the alignment is not
preciselystraightthereisavariation.
Q.
Do you find backward slant in all
questioned writing whereas forward slant in
specimen writing, this is major difference
betweentwo?
Ans.Itiscorrect.
Q.
Do you find backward slant in starting
letterFandTQ.1894andQ.1886?
Ans. Itiscorrect.
Q.
Is it correct that there is difference in
spacinginasmuchasitismoreinbetweenthe
words for and transferred in specimen
writing, whereas less in questioned writing
Q1871,Q1876,Q1881,Q1886andQ1894?
Ans. Itisincorrect.Thespacingbetweenthe
words for and transferred were similarly
foundinthespecimenwritings.
ItiswrongtosuggestthatIamdenying
thefacts.
Q.
Didyounoticeanydifferenceinstarting
letterFwithtriangularloopatthebottomin
between the specimen writing but not in
questionedwriting?
Ans. Idonotfindasthesameisappearingin
specimenwithnaturalvariations.
Q.
Do you find in the terminal stroke of
letterrofwordtransfer,whichgoesupwardly
CCNo.19/2009Page80/121
inthequestionedwritingbuthorizontallyinthe
specimenwriting?
Ans. No.
Q.
DoyoufindletterTofwordtransfer
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
onlypictorialresemblanceintheoutwardform
ofletters?
Ans. Thesimilaritiesmentionedinmyreports
are based on the scientific examination and
comparisonofquestionedandspecimen.
167.
This part of cross examination shows that there is no
substance in the plea of the accused that his specimen

handwritingsdonottallywiththequestionedhandwriting. I
furtherpointoutthatthereportofdefenceexpert Ex.DW1/A
has opined that the formation of the letters in the disputed
writing is different from the specimen writings. I totally
disagreewiththisopinionbecauseperusalofthespecimenand
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
thatofaccusedSatishPalSingh.
CCNo.19/2009Page81/121
Theinferenceof8NC32formsrecoveredattheinstanceof
K.M.Singh(A1)
I have already held that eight NC32 forms bearing the
writingfortransferandsignaturesofSatishPalSingh(A2),
thepostalassistant,werefoundattheinstanceofaccusedK.M.
Singh. These forms bear the date stamp having the date
22.6.1999.IhavealreadymentionedthataccusedK.M.Singh
wasarrestedon24.6.1999.Asarleadydiscussed,thelastbunch
of KVPs were fraudulently encashed on 18.6.1999. I have
alreadydiscussedthattheNC32formsissentbyapostofficeto
the issuing post office, mentioning all the particulars of the
KVPs,whichhavebeenpresentedtosuchpostoffice. Thisis
doneforthepurposeofverificationoftheKVPsbytheissuing
post office. The NC32 forms collectively exhibited as
Ex.PW39/A44areblankinallrespectexceptthesignaturesof
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
22.6.1999alongwiththestampsandinitialsofSubPostMaster.
AccusedSatishPalSinghhasnotbeenabletoexplainastowhy
theendorsementfortransferinhishandalongwiththedate
stampareavailableontheseforms. Theonlyinferenceisthat
CCNo.19/2009Page82/121
these forms were to be used for the purpose of filling the

particularsofstolenKVPsandputtingthefakestampsofother
post offices on the same and thereafter getting the same
encashedfromtheHariNagarAshramPostOffice.Imaypoint
outthatPW6SunilKrishanNagarhastestifiedthataccusedK.
M. Singh has come to his shop and got various designs of
variouspostofficesprepared. ThisprovesthataccusedK.M.
SinghandSatishPalSinghwereinconspiracywitheachother
incommissionofthistypeofoffences. Itneedstobestressed
thattheaforesaidfactshavetobeseeninoverallbackdropof
thecircumstancesinthiscase. ThestolenKVPsarefilledwith
the forged particulars. The offenders are impersonating as
holders of the KVPs and getting the same encashed from the
postoffices. Forthispurposetheyareadoptingtwotypesof
methods.Firsttheyarepreparingfakeidentityslipspurported
tohavebeenissuedbythepostofficefromwheretheKVPswere
showntohavebeenpurchasedandonthebasisofsuchidentity
slips,thepostalofficialsencashedthoseKVPs.Secondmethod
istopreparefakeNC32formsrequiredfortransferofKVPsfrom
onepostofficetoanotherpostoffice.Inthiscasefakeidentity
slips were prepared to get the KVPs encashed. The another
method of getting fake NC32 forms was under the way just
CCNo.19/2009Page83/121
beforethearrestofaccusedK.M.Singh.Althoughthisisavery
small fact but it goes far away backwards. This exposes the
entirestoryastohowalltheKVPswereencashedfraudulently
byactiveinvolvementofpostalofficialnamelySatishPalSingh.
It proves that accused K. M. Singh was one of the active
conspirators inthe conspiracy whichinvolved, apart from the
other co accused persons, the postal officials including Satish
PalSingh.
SohanPalSharma(A2)
168.
ItisarguedbySh.KedarYadav,Ld.DefenceCounselthat
thespecimenhandwritingofaccusedSohanPalSharmawas
takenbytheInvestigatingOfficerwithoutthepermissionofthe
Magistrateandthereforethesameisnotadmissibleinevidence
against him. I disagree with his submissions. There were
divergentviewsofourownHighCourtonthisissuebutnowin
BhupenderSinghVs.State,thefullBenchofDelhiHighCourt
consistingHon'bleChiefJusticeDeepakMishra,Mr.JusticeAnil
KumarandMr.JusticeSanjivKhanna,whiledecidingCriminal
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
(CriminalAppealNo.446of2005decidedon25.3.2010)and
CCNo.19/2009Page84/121
rejected the ratio of the decision of the Division Bench in

SatyawanVs.State(CriminalAppealNo.34/2001decidedon
9.7.2009).InSatyawanVsState,theDivisionBenchofHon'ble
HighCourthadheldthattakingspecimenwritingwithoutthe
orderofthecourtisnotlegalandwouldnotbeadmissiblein
evidenceagainstaccused. In BhupenderSinghVs.State the
fullBenchofHon'bleHighCourtofDelhiclearlyheldthatthe
viewexpressedinthedecisionsnamely SatyawanVsState is
notthecorrectview. Henceitisclearthatthespecimenhand
writing can be taken from an accused by the Investigating
Officerandsamewouldbeadmissibleinevidenceevenifsuch
specimen hand writing had been taken by the Investigating
OfficerwithoutpermissionoftheMagistrate. Further,thereis
nothing on record to show that specimen handwriting of
accusedSohanPalSharmawastakenundercoercion,threator
pressure. Therefore,thespecimenhandwritinghasbeengiven
bytheaccusedvoluntarily.
169.
Ld.DefenceCounselarguesthatitwouldbehighlyunsafeto
convictapersonsolelyonthebasisoftheopinionofthehandwriting
expert.Hehasreferredtothefollowingjudgmentsinhissupport:
1. IshawariPrasadV.Mohd.Isa,AIR1963SC1728.
2. SashiKumarv.SubodhKumar,AIR1964SC529.
CCNo.19/2009Page85/121
3. StateofGujaratVsVinayaChandraChhotaLalPatniAIR778,
1967SCR(1)249.
4. BalakrishnaDasV.RadhaDeviAIR1989AII133.
5. State of Maharashtra V. Sukhdeo Singh AIR 1992 SC 2100
(2116):(1992)3SCJ330.
6. StateofU.P.V.CharlesGurmukhSobhraj,CriLJ3844:(1996)9
SCC472:1996SCC1065.
7. StateofHimachalPradeshVsJaiLal&Ors.AIR1999SC3318,
199(2)ALDCri855.
8. PiaraSinghVs.JagtarSinghAIR1987Punj93.
9. VandavasiKarthikeyaaliasKrishnamuthryv.S.KamalammaAIR
1994AP102at114.
10.RamChandraandAnr.Vs.StateofUttarPradeshAIR1957SC
381,1957CriL.J.559
11.KanchanSinghv.StateofGuj.AIR1979SC1011:1979CriLJ889.
12.MaganBehariLalv.StateofPb.AIR1977SC1091:1977CriLJ
711.
Ontheotherhand,Ld.PublicProsecutorhasreferredto JaipalVs
State and Rajender Vs State and submitted that handwriting expert's
reportisenoughtoconnectapersonwiththecrime.Ihaveconsideredthe
submissions.Iamoftheopinionthatanexpert'sopinionisanevidencein
itself.Section45ofIndianEvidenceActlaysdownthatwhenthecourthas
toformanopinionastotheidentityofhandwritingorfingerimpressions,
CCNo.19/2009Page86/121
the opinions upon that point of the persons expert in that science are
relevantfacts.Ifthetwohandwritingsmatchwitheachother,thisitself
isanevidenceasperthetheIndianEvidenceAct.Tosayitdifferently,the
matching of two handwritings is itself a substantial evidence u/s 45 of
IndianEvidenceActandtheopinionofthehandwritingexpertissought
onlytofacilitatethecourttoformanopiniononthispoint.Therefore,to
saythat convictioncanbeorcannotbebasedsolelyuponthereportof
handwritingexpertwouldbemisleading.Theappropriateinterpretationof
Section45ofIndianEvidenceActisthatcourtiscompetenttoformitsown
opiniononthepointofidentityofhandwritingandforthatpurposethe
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.IfullyagreewiththeLd.PublicProsecutorandquotefromthe
judgmentdated05.07.2011passedbytheDivisionBenchofHon'bleMr.
JusticeS.RavindraBhattandHon'bleMr.JusticeG.P.Mittalin JaipalVs
State Criminal Appeal No. 137/98 and Rajendra Vs State Criminal
AppealNo.181/98asunder:
ItistruethatexceptthehandwritingExpert'sreport
Ext.PW4/Athereisnocorroborationthattheransom
letterExt.PW12/AwasinthehandwritingofAppellant
Jaipal.ThequestionwasdealtindetailbytheSupreme
CourtinMurariLalv.StateofM.P.,AIR1980SC531.
Thecourtobservedthathandwritingexpertisnotan
CCNo.19/2009Page87/121
accompliceandthereisnojustificationforcondemninghis
opinionevidence.ItwasheldthatiftheCourtisconvinced
fromthereportofanexpertthatthequestioned
handwritingwasoftheaccused,thereisnodifficultyin
relyingupontheexpert'sopinionwithoutany
corroboration.
It is pertinent to note that Hon'ble High Court had relied upon
MurariLalv.StateofM.P.,AIR1980SC531whereinHon'bleSupreme
Courtheldthattherewasnoruleoflawnoranyruleofprudencethatthe
evidenceofhandwritingexpertmustnotbeactedupon,unlesssubstantially
corroborated.
170.
Inviewoftheabovestatedlaw,Iamoftheopinionthatwhen
a case is being pressed by the prosecution solely on the basis of

handwritingexpert,thecourtshouldbeverycautiousandthereasons
fortheexpertopinionmustbecarefullyexamined. Incasewhere
reasonsforopinionareconvincingandthereisnoreliableevidence
throwingadoubtuponit,thetestimonyofhandwritingexpertmay
beaccepted.
171.
ItisfurtherarguedbyLd.DefenceCounselthatthereisno
evidencethathehasbeenbenefitedfromthiscrimeandthat
prosecution has been unable to prove any motive for
commissionoftheseoffences. Idonotfindanysubstancein
thesesubmissions.Ifthereisevidencethatanaccusedhasbeen
CCNo.19/2009Page88/121
apartofconspiracywhereinforgedKVPshadbeenencashed,
the inescapable consequence would be that such accused has
donesowithaviewtogetwrongfulgaintohimselforwrongful
loss to the government. Ld. Defence Counsel argues that
neitheranyingredientofsection467IPChasbeenprovednor
anyingredientofSection468IPChasbeenproved.Itisargued
thatcheatingisanecessaryingredientoftheoffencesofforgery
andsinceprosecutionhasbeenunabletoprovethataccusedhas
cheatedanyone,hecannotbeconvictedu/s467&468IPC. I
disagreewithhissubmissions.Forgingthehandwrittenportion
ofKVPsinalargenumberofsuchKVPSitselfshowsthatthe
forgery has been done with an intention to cheat the
Government/PostalAuthorities.
172.
Ld.PPsubmitsthatinitiallyonlyonecasewasregistered
inwhichthespecimensignaturesoftheaccusedpersonswere
taken. Later on, these cases were saggregated in four, post
officewise. Therefore,thespecimensignaturesarerelevantto
eachcaseofthesefourconnectedcases.
173.
Iamoftheopinionthatthereisnolawwhichprohibits
the prosecution from taking any material of one case and

puttingthesameinanothercase.Ifamaterialofonecasealso
formsapieceofevidenceagainstanaccusedinanothercase,
CCNo.19/2009Page89/121
thesamemaybeprovedbytheprosecutioninothercasesalso.
174.
Ld. Defence Counsel has drawn my attention to the
specimensignaturesExt.PW15/A1andsubmitsthatinitiallythe
InvestigatingOfficerhaswrittenthenameofSatishPalSingh
and thereafter he wrote Sohan Pal Sharma after cutting the
nameofSatishPalSingh.Ihaveseenthespecimensignatures.
On seeing the sheet Ext.PW15/A1, it is clear that an
inadvertentmistakehasbeencorrected.Itbearsthesignatures
ofSohanPalSinghatpointA. Itispertinenttonotethaton
furthersheetsExt.PW15/A2toExt.PW15/A158,thesignatures
ofSohanPalSharmaarepresentatpointAofeachsheetand
perusalofthesamewouldshowthatthesignaturesatpointA
onExt.PW15/A1andtheothersheetsareofthesameperson.
Accusedhasnowhereshownorprovedthatthesignatureson
thespecimensheetsatpointAdonotpertaintohim. Ipoint
outthatasperprosecutioncasethesespecimensignatureswere
takeninthepresenceofGyaneshKumarJain.Thiswitnesswas
examinedbymeu/s311CrPCasacourtwitnessandhehad
proved his signatures at point B on each sheet. In these
circumstances,Iamoftheopinionthatprosecutionhasproved
beyond doubt that the specimen handwriting of Sohan Pal
Sharmawastakenonthesesheets.Evenifthereissomecutting
CCNo.19/2009Page90/121
ononesheetExt.PW15/A1,thesameisinadvertentandis a
correctionofamistake.Hence,nobenefitofitcanbegivento
theaccused.
175.
As per the prosecution case, accused K. M. Singh was
arrestedon 24.6.1999 andhe madea 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
Sharmaasbeingactiveparticipantintheconspiracy. Accused
SohanPalSharmawasarrestedon2.7.1999andthereforehis
disclosure statement was recorded on 6.7.1999. In his
disclosurestatementhedisclosedabouthisinvolvementinthe
conspiracy and having encahsed the KVPs. He specially
disclosed about the encashing of various KVPs. As per
prosecutioncase,heimpersonatedasChaudharyHarpalSingh
holderof125KVPsbearingno.28CC982151to28CC982175
and 35BB922201 to 35BB922300 amounting to Rs.
12,97,000/andgottheaforesaidpayment.Itisallegedthathe
had fraudulentlysignedasChaudharyHarpalSinghonthese
KVPs.
176.
Aspertheprosecutioncasetheaforesaidwritingsonthe
body part and the signatures of Harpal on these questioned

CCNo.19/2009Page91/121
documentstallywiththehandwritingsoftheperson,whohas
S1toS158,whicharethespecimenhandwritingsofaccused
SohanPalSharma.
177.
On125KVPsbearingno.28CC982151to28CC982175
and 35BB922201 to 35BB922300 has the signatures of one

HarpalSinghsignifyingthereceiptoftheencashedamount.As
perprosecutioncasethespecimensignaturesasHarpalSinghof
accused Sohan Pal Sharma were taken on the sheets S74 to
S83 (Ex.PW15/A74toEx.PW15/A83). AccusedSohanPal
SinghhasgiventhesespecimenhandwritingbywritingHarpal
Singh in Hindi language. As per the expert's report
Ex.PW15/3 (Page11,whichisthereasonsfortheopinion),
theexperthasgiventheopinion,relevantportionofwhichisas
under:
Intersecomparisonofthestandardwritingsrevealsthattheyarefreelywritten,show
naturalvariationsandhaveinterconsistencyamongthemselves.Thequestionedwritingsalso
exhibitthesequalitiessimilarly.Theyalsoagreeinthegeneralwritinghabitsofmovement,skill,
speed,alignment,spacing,relativesizeandproportionofthelettersandtheircombination,
natureofcommencingandterminalstroke,simplificationetc.
Bothquestionedandstandardwritingsalsoagreeintheminuteandinconspicuousdetails
offormationoflettersandtheircombination,someofsuchsimilaritiesintheindividualwriting
habitsare:mannerofexecutionofHindiletter'ra'withthenatureandlocationofitsstartnature
andlocationofitsbodycurvaturewiththeformationloopatthemiddleanddirectionoffinish;
relativesize,natureandlocationofthevowelsignof'Aakar';commencementofletter'ma',
natureandlocationofitsdiagonalstrokeandmannerofitsjoiningwiththesecondverticalstaff
anddirectionoffinish;movementintheexecutionofthevowelsignof'ikar','okar','chandra
CCNo.19/2009Page92/121
bindu'etcwithsimilarvariation;executi9onofletter'sa',natureandlocationofitsbodypartand
finish;natureandstartofletter'ha'.........
Thereisnodivergencebetweenquestionedandstandardwritingsandthereisnosignof
imitationintheproductionofthequestionedwritings.Theabovediscussedsimilaritiesinthe
writinghabitsbetweenthequestionedandstandardwritingsaresignificantandsufficientand
willnotaccidentallycoincideinwritingsoftwodifferentpersonsandwhenconsidered
collectivelyleadmetotheaforesaidopinionofcommonauthorship.
178.
Afterperusingthespecimenandquestionedhandwritings,
Ifullyagreewith this report and the reasoning ofthe expert

witness PW37. Thus prosecution has proved that accused
SohanPalSinghnotonlyimpersonatedasHarpalSingh(afake
holderofKVPs)andtherebycheatedthepostaldepartmentbut
hasalsoreceivedthemoneyafterencashingtheseKVPsbecause
he has signed on the KVPs as the recipient of the encashed
amount.
LaxmanPrasad@Thakur(A3)
179.
As per charge sheet during the period 2.6.1998 to
12.6.1998,hehadimpersonatedasHariPrasadholderof527
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
970338to970348,28CC982031to982040,28CC970351to
970400 total amounting to Rs.64,96,100/ and encashed the
same on various dates. It is stated that as per the report of
CCNo.19/2009Page93/121
GEQD,thesignaturesoftherecipientoftheKVPsamoutasHari
PrasadhasbeenforgedbyaccusedLaxmanPrasad.Imaypoint
outthatspecimenhandwritings/signaturesweretakenbythe
Investigating Officer on the sheets from S546 to S619.
HoweverhisspecimensignaturesasHariPrasadaretakenfrom
S552toS565.
180.
As per the GEQD report Ex.PW15/1, the hand writing
videwhichtheamounthasbeenwritteninnumeralsaswellas
inwordsinthecolumnofRECEIPTOFDISCHARGEandthe
signatures of Hari Prasad beneath it as recipient of the
amount/holderofKVPstallieswiththespecimenhandwritings
and signatures of accused Laxman Prasad. This opinion has
been given on page 1 to 4 of the report Ex.PW15/1. The
reasoningfortheopinionasappearinginEx.PW15/3atpage1,
2and3,whichisreproducedasunder:(therelevantportion)
Inter se comparison of the standard

writings and signatures reveals that they are
freelywritten,shownaturalvariationsandhave
inter consistency among themselves. The
questionedwritingsandsignaturesalsoexhibit
thesequalitiessimilarly.Theyalsoagreeinthe
general writing habits of movement which is
wristpredominantwithsomeactionofforearm,
skill, speed, alignment, spacing, relative size
and proportion of the letters and their
combination, nature of commencing and
CCNo.19/2009Page94/121
terminal stroke, simplification, movement of
strokesintheformationofletterandsignatures
etc.Bothquestionedandstandardwritingsand
signatures also agree in the minute and
inconspicuous details of formation of letters
and their combinations, some of such
similaritiesintheindividualwritinghabitsare:
mannerofexecutionofletter'S'withthenature
andlocationofitsstart,natureandlocationof
upperandlowerbodypartandmannerofits
joiningwiththesucceedingletter'i',natureand
startofletter'e',natureandlocationofitseye
let and direction of finish; commencement of
letter'E',natureandlocationofitsupperand
lowerbodycurvatureandmannerofitsjoining
with the succeeding letter 'i'; nature and
locationofidot;combinationofletter'g'h'
and't'intheletter'eight';mannerofexecution
ofletter'n'withthenatureandlocationofits
body part and finish; combination of letter 't'
and'h''u'and's'intheword'thousand',startof
letter'o' withthenature of itsbody partand
finish; simplified execution of letter 'd' nature
andlocationofitsdownwardverticalstaffand
finish'bifurcationintheexecutionofletter'r';
combination of letter 'o' 'n' 'I' 'y' in the word
'only'; start o letter 'N' with the nature of its
diagonalstrokeandmannerofitsjoiningwith
second vertical staff and direction of finish;
nature and location of the vertical and
horizontalstrokeintheexecutionofletter'T';
execution of letter 'H' with the nature and
location of its horizontal stroke as well as
manner ofitsjoiningtothe verticalstaff and
direction of finish; nature and location in the
formation of body part of letter 'p' ; start of
letter'a'natureandlocationofitovalpartand
CCNo.19/2009Page95/121
mannerofitsjoiningtothesucceedingletter;
manner of execution of commonly occurring
figuressuchas:'I''4''6''9'andcombinationof
figures '00' & '29' are observed similar in the
questioned and standard. All the significant
featuresasoccurringinthequestionedwritings
andsignaturesarefoundsimilarexemplifiedat
oneortheotherplaceinthestandardwritings
andsignatures.
There is no divergence between

questionedandstandardwritings&signatures.
Thereisnosignofimitationintheproduction
ofthequestionedwritingsandsignatures.The
above discussed similarities in the writing
habits between the questioned and standard
writings and signatures are significant and
sufficientandwillnotaccidentallycoincidein
writings of two different persons and when
consideredcollectivelyleadmetotheaforesaid
opinionofcommonauthorship.
181.
Ontheotherhand,accusedhasexaminedhishandwriting
expert,whohasgivenadifferentopinionandhasstatedinhis
report Ex.DW1/C that the question hand writings/signatures
and the specimen hand writings have been written by two
differentwriters. Heselecteddisputedwritingandsignatures
randomly.
In this report, the defence expert has selected Q2405,
Q2410, Q2415, Q2420, Q2425, Q5615, Q5619, Q5623,

Q11633,Q11636,Q11641,Q11645,Q11649whicharethe
disputed hand writings vide which the amount encahsed on
CCNo.19/2009Page96/121
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
specimensignaturesshowabetterdegreeofpenmanshipas
comparedwiththatofthedisputedsignatures.Furtheritis
opined that the disputed signatures have been written by a
medium skilled writer andthese signatures donotshow well
definedmotionandfluencyinthemannerofexecutionandthat
curvaturesofstokearenotwellformedandeventheindividual
lettersaredifferentintheircurvesandjoiningandplacingof
strokes on the point of signatures. The expert witness has
furtheropinedasunder:
COMPARISON OF SIGNATURES
(H.PRASAD):
A comparison of class and individual
characteristic in disputed and specimen
signaturesisasunder:
1)
MOVEMENT: The disputed signatures
(Q2407, Q2411) have been written with
advancefingermovementduetolowerorderof
writing skill, unsymmetrical letter formation
andilldefinedconnectionsbetweentheletters.
But specimen signatures (e.g. S551, S552)
CCNo.19/2009Page97/121
have been written with wrist cum forearm
movementduetofairdegreeofwritingspeed,
angular connection, well defined curves and
smoothconnectionsoftheletters.
2)
LINEQUALITY:Linequalityissmooth,
flowingandfluentinspecimensignatures(e.g.
S555, S556) due to continuity inmovement
andwellgradedstrokesbutontheotherhand
disputed signatures (e.g. Q11642, Q11646)
showlowerorderoflinequalityincomparison
to the specimen signatures and this is due to
the reason of less fluency and rhythm of the
stokesoflettersandtheircurvatures.
3)
SPEED: The speed is rapid order in
specimensignatures(e.g.S553,S554)dueto
welldefinedcurvesandangleofthestrokesof
the letters but it is slow to medium order in
disputedsignatures(e.g.Q5620,Q5624)due
to halting formation of the letters and their
strokesaswellasconnectionofthelettersin
themannerofexecution.
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)anddisputedsignatures(e.g.Q11642,
Q11646)showsangularandroundedstylebut
itislabouredindisputedsignaturesandflying
andspeedyinspecimensignatures.
6)
AHDING, PEN PRESSURE AND PEN
POSITION: The correct examination of these
factorsisnotpossibleinphotocopiesandball
pen writings. This can be examined only in
CCNo.19/2009Page98/121
fountain pen writing because in those writing
thereissplitofnib.
7)
NATURAL VARIATIONS: Disputed
signatures (e.g. Q11642, Q11646) shows
unnatural variations with the specimen
signatures (e.g. S553, S554) due to the
presenceofinconsistenciesintheformationof
letters.Onlyspecimensignaturesshownatural
variations interse in the form of slight
divergencesincurves,loops,anglesandinitial
andterminalstrokesoftheletters.
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)whentheyarecomparedwith
thespecimensignatures(e.g.S556,S557)due
tothepresenceofdifferentheightandwidthof
theletters.e.g.Theheightoftheletterssuchas
HandPismoreindisputedsignaturesbut
lessinspecimensignatures.
9)
DISGUISE: There is no evidence of
disguiseindisputedandspecimensignatures.
10) COORDINATION OF WRITING
MUSCLES:Thereisaperfectcoordinationin
writing muscles in specimen signatures (e.g.
S556, S557) due to wrist cum forearm
movementofthehand.Butitisnotperfectin
disputedsignatures(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)thepenscopeis
limited. Butitismuchextendedinspecimen
signatures (e.g. S553, S554) due to the
CCNo.19/2009Page99/121
presenceofwristcumforearmmovementofthe
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
signaturesinthefollowingmanner:
a)
LetterH:Themannerandexecution
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 withthe middle connecting stroke are
similarly executed in well defined manner in
specimen signatures but not in disputed
signaturesdue to differentpen operation and
unevendensityofink.Itiswritteninthreepen
operationinspecimensignaturesbutmorethan
threeindisputedsignatures.
b)
Letterp: Thedesignandmannerof
executionof letterpisdifferent indisputed
andspecimensignatures. Theinitialstrokeof
the body loop is extended and makes joining
withthemiddleconnectingstrokesofletterH
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
CCNo.19/2009Page100/121
Hinspecimensignatures(e.g.S553,S554),
demonstrated at point b on the enlarged
photographs.
c)
Letter r: Formation of letter r is
differentindisputedandspecimensignatures.
The ink is uniform and written in fully
developed manner and style of formation in
specimen signatures (e.g. S553, S554)
whereasthedepositionoftheinkismoreand
slowlyexecutedduetodifferentpenoperation
employedbythewriterindisputedsignatures
(e.g. Q11642, Q11646), demonstrated at
pointcontheenlargedphotographs.
d)
Letter a: The design and style of
formationofletteraisdifferentindisputed
and specimen signatures. The body oval is
circular to elliptical in shape in specimen
signatures(e.g.S553,S554)whereasmostly
elliptical in shape in disputed signatures (e.g.
Q11642, Q11646), demonstrated at point d
ontheenlargedphotographs.
e)
Letters:Theexecutionoflettersis
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)
2ndLettera
:Themannerofexecution
of letter a is different in disputed and
specimensignatures.Thebodyovalisopenas
well as closed and makes loop in disputed
signatures (Q2407, Q2411) whereas it is
mostlyclosedand doesnotmakeanyloopin
specimen signatures (e.g. S553, S554),
CCNo.19/2009Page101/121
demonstrated at point f on the enlarged
photographs.
g)
Letter d: Formation of letter d is
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 touniform
density of ink but not in disputed signatures
(e.g.Q11642, Q11646) due todifferentpen
operation,unevendensityofinkandmovement
ofthewriter,demonstratedatpoint g onthe
h)
EmbellishmentStroke:Thevariationin
thewidthofstroke,itsstartingandfinishingis
inwelldefinedmannerinspecimensignatures
(e.g. S553, S554) but not in disputed
signatures (e.g. Q2407, Q2411) due to
unusualpenpausesandsuddendeparturesin
the lines which suggest the lower writing
movement employed by the writer,
demonstrated at point h on the enlarged
photographs.
COMPARISONOFWRITINGS:
The specimen writings (e.g. S600,

S601)oncarefulexaminationshowthatthey
havebeenwrittenandsignedfreely,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
presenceofslightdivergencesincurves,loops,
angles and initial and terminal strokes of the
letters.
The disputed writings (e.g. Q2405,

Q2410)oncarefulexaminationshowthatthey
CCNo.19/2009Page102/121
havealsobeenwrittenbyaskilledwriterand
free from any line quality defects such as
hesitationonthepartsofthestrokes,unnatural
penpauseinthemiddleofthestrokesand a
careful joining of the strokes at the starting,
middleandendingconnectionofthelettersetc.
Butthesedisputedwritingsaredifferentinthe
manner and making of individual letters,
curves,joiningandplacingofstrokesandtheir
connectionetc.whentheyarecomparedwith
thespecimenwritings.
Because both specimen and disputed

writingsarewrittenbytheskilledwritersand
noattemptismadetosimulate/copyandtrace
from a model in disputed writings therefore
some class characteristics features such as
movement,speed,skill,penscope,coordination
ofwritingmuscles,linequalitydefectssuchas
hesitation,penlifts,penpause,retouchingetc.
hasnosignificantvalueincomparisonprocess.
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

individualcharacteristicsbetweenthedisputed
andspecimenwritingsisasunder:
1)
SLANT: The degree of slant of the
lettersismoreforwardindisputedwriting(e.g.
Q5615,Q5619)ascomparedtothespecimen
writing(e.g.S600,S601).
2)
NATURALVARIATIONS:Thelettersof
thedisputedwritings(e.g.Q2425,Q5615)do
notshownaturalvariationswiththespecimen
CCNo.19/2009Page103/121
writings(e.g.S602,S603)duetothepresence
ofdifferentmannerandexecutionoftheletters.
Onlythelettersofthespecimenwritingsshow
naturalvariationsinterseintheformofslight
divergencesincurves,loops,anglesandinitial
andterminalstrokesoftheletters.
3)
SIZE AND PROPORTIONS OF
LETTERS: The size and proportion of the
letters are not similar in their relative
proportionsindisputedwritingswhentheyare
compared with the specimen writings due to
the presence of different height and width of
theletters.e.g.Theheightoftheletterssuchas
E,g,h,s,eetc.ismoreinspecimenwriting
(e.g.S604,S605)butlessindisputedwritings
(e.g.Q2425,Q5615).
4)
SPACING:Therelativespacingbetween
the wrods and letters is more in specimen
writings but less in disputed writings . e.g.
BetweenthewordsEighteenandthousandthe
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
writingsinthefollowingmanner:
a)
LetterE:TheupperloopofletterE
inwordeighteenisbiggerinshapeinspecimen
writing(e.g.S604,S605)ascomparedtothe
disputed writing. The terminal stroke makes
retraced joining with the staff of letter i in
disputedwriting(e.g.Q2425,Q5615)butnot
inspecimenwritings,demonstratedatpoint a
ontheenlargedphotographs.
b)
Letteri:Itismoretendedtowardsthe
CCNo.19/2009Page104/121
right side in disputed writing (e.g. Q11641,
Q11645)ascomparedtothespecimenwritings
(e.g.S600,S601),demonstratedatpointbon
c)
Letterq:Thelowerloopisbiggerin
shapeandtheterminalmakescrossingonthe
upper portion of its body staff in specimen
writing(e.g.S604,S605)whereasthelower
loopissmallerinshapeandtheterminalmakes
crossingonthemiddleportionofitsbodystaff
in disputed writing (e.g. Q2425, Q5615),
demonstrated at point c on the enlarged
photographs.
d)
Letter h: It is more tended towards
therightsideandmakesloopinthebodystaff
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
pointdontheenlargedphotographs.
e)
Letter n: In word Eighteen, it is
moretendedtowardstherightsideindisputed
writingswhereasverticallyplacedinspecimen
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
writtenincontinuationmannerwiththestaffof
letter h in disputed writings (e.g. Q11641,
Q11645) whereas written separately in
specimenwriting(e.g.S600,S601).Itisalso
writteninuppercasemannerinQ5615,Q5619
and Q5623, demonstrated at point f on the
CCNo.19/2009Page105/121
h)
Letter i: In word sixteen, the
diacritic mark is tented type in specimen
writings(e.g.S600,S601)whereasdottype
indisputedwritings(e.g.Q11641,Q11645),
demonstrated at point h on the enlarged
photographs.
i)
LetterS:Inwordsixteen,thelower
loop is elliptical in shape in disputed writing
(e.g.Q2425,Q5615)whereasmostlycircular
in specimen writings (e.g. S604, S605),
demonstrated at point i on the enlarged
photographs.
j)
Letter x: In word sixteen, the
beginningstrokeiscurvedinstyleinspecimen
writing (e.g. S600, S601) whereas straight
strokeformationofmannerindisputedwritings
(e.g. Q11641, Q11645), demonstrated at
pointjontheenlargedphotographs.
182.
Ihaveperusedthereportsofprosecutionexpertandthe
defence expert and I have also perused the questioned

documents and the specimen handwritings/signatures. The
standardwritingsofaccusedLaxmanPrasadarefromS546to
S619 Ex.PW26/1 toEx.PW26/74. Inthesestandardwritings
his signatures as Hari Prasad have been taken on S550 to
S565.Similarlyhisstandardhandwritingsinnumeralsandin
wordsmentioningtheamountistakenonS600toS605. I
taketheexampleoftheKVPno.45CC163660Ex.PW14/D59.
CCNo.19/2009Page106/121
On this KVP, Q9868 is the handwriting of the amount of Rs.

18600/andEighteenthousandandsixhundredwiththedate
8.5.1999. ThesignaturesofrecipientonthisKVPisatpoint
Q9869. Thestandardhandwritingofthesignaturesavailable
from S550 to S565 fully matches with Q9869. Similarly
perusalofstandardhandwritingatS600 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
thousandhasbeenwritten. Fromthisspecimenhandwriting,
thewordsix written in theaforesaid KVPat Q9868 can be
compared. Theveryperusalofboththesewordsspeciallythe
mannerofwriting'S'iswithoutanydoubtsimilar.
183.
Imaypointoutthatthehandwritingexperthasexamined
largenumberofdocumentsallegedlyforgedbyaccusedLaxman
Prasad but as per his opinion as many as 527 questioned
handwritingsontheKVPsandidentityslipsmatchedwithhis
specimenhandwritings/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,
CCNo.19/2009Page107/121
whereas the questioned handwritings show a lesserdegree of

penmanship. I disagree with his opinion because both the
writings showequaldegreeofpenmanship. Sinceadifferent
pen was used in writing the specimen and the questioned
documents, itappearsthatsuchdifferencehasbeen takenby
the defence expert as different degrees of penmanship.
Regardingtheopinionofexpertonthemovement,linequality,
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
amplespace,thequestionedhandwritingsandsignatureswere
writtenonaverysmallspaceavailableontheKVPs.Hencethis
difference. Ontheformationofletters,Iwouldsaythatthere
hastobenaturalvariationsinthehandwritingofapersonbut
thatwouldnotleadtotheconclusionthatthesamehavebeen
writtenbytwodifferentpersons.
185.
Ontheotherhand,PW37inhisopinionhasreferredto
thetypicalhabitsofthewriterofboththehandwritings,which
arenatureandlocationofidot,bifurcationintheexecutionof
letter 'r', start of 'o', start of letter 'n' with the nature of its
diagonalstroke,formationof'H'and'p'etc.Eventhenumerals
inthequestionedhandwritingontheKVPsalsomatchwiththe
CCNo.19/2009Page108/121
standardhandwriting.
186.
HenceIrejectthereportofthedefenceexpertandaccept
theopinionofPW37andholdthattheKVPsinquestionhave
notonlybeenforgedbyLaxmanPrasadbutalsosincehehas
putthesignaturesofafakeholdernamelyHariPrasadasthe
receiverofthecashamount,Iholdthathehasalsocheatedthe
postaldepartmentbyimpersonation.
EvidencequaaccusedHariNarayanPal@Neta(A6)
187.
It is argued bySh. Kedar Yadav, adv. Ld. Amicus Curie
thatPW29DevenderKumar,whoisaChowkidarinDadariPost
Office,LalaRamBharti(PW8)andNandKishoreJoshi(PW27),
arehighlydoubtfulwitnesses. FurtherthetestimonyofSushil
KrishanNagar(PW6)isalsounworthyofcredence.Itisargued
thatDevenderKumar,LalaRamBhartiandNandKishoreJoshi
are postal officials and it appears that they have actively
colluded in commission of the offence. Further more their
testimoniesarenotcorroboratedbyindependentevidence.Itis
arguedthatthetestimonyofPW6SushilKrishanNagarisvery
vague.Ld.DefenceCounselarguesthatPW8LalaRamBharti,
who was posted in Post Office, Lodhi Road, New Delhi, has
testifiedthataccusedH.N.PalhadcomewithonePaliwaland
had taken a booklet of identity slips. It is argued that this
CCNo.19/2009Page109/121
evidencedoesnotconnectH.N.Palwiththecommissionofthe
presentoffencebecauseitisnotknownastohowthisbookletof
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
RoadPostOffice,doesnotinanymannernameaccusedH.N.
Palhavingreceived the identityslipsbookletfrom him. Itis
further argued that PW29 Devender Kumar, who was a
chowkidar at Dadri Post Office, does not testify as to what
accusedH.N.Palhaddoneinsidethepostoffice.
188.
Ontheotherhand,Ld.PublicProsecutorarguesthatthis
courthadrelieduponthetestimoniesoftheaforesaidwitnesses
whileconvictingaccusedH.N.PalinCCNo.1/2010pertaining
tothesimilarfraudcommittedinNirankariColonyPostOffice.
Ld.PublicProsecutorhasarguedthatPW27NandKishoreJoshi
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
papersinthestockroomfromhim. ItissubmittedthatPW8
LalaRamBhartihastestifiedthathehadsuppliedtheidentity
slips to accused H. N. Pal. PW29 Devender Kumar, the
chowkidarinDadriPostoffice,hastestifiedthataccusedH.N.
CCNo.19/2009Page110/121
Pal along with a view other persons had come to Dadri Post
Officeatabout8:30pmandmadehimtodrinkliquordueto
whichbebecameintoxicated.Theytookoutthekeysfromhis
person and they were asking about the date's stamps.
Thereafter they went inside the hall and when he gained
consciousness,hefoundthatinthemainhallofthepostoffice,
onestampwaslyingongroundandtwoorthreepersonwere
lyinginscatteredpositionnearbox. FurtherSh.SunilKrishan
Nagar(PW6)hastestifiedthataccusedK.M.SinghandH.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
testifiedhavingsuppliedtheidentityslipstoaccusedH.N.Pal.
PW8DevenderKumar,thechowkidarinDadriPostOffice,also
testifiesthatH.N.Palalongwithhisaccompliceshadtakenout
thekeyfromhispersonandwasaskingforthedate'sstampand
when they left, PW8 found that one stamp was lying on the
groundandotherstampswerelyinginscatteredposition.Itis
clearthataccusedH.N.Palwasuptosomemischief.However
CCNo.19/2009Page111/121
withaviewtoconnecthimwiththeforgeriesandconspiracyin
thepresentcasepertainingtoHariNagarAshramPostOffice,
prosecutionmustprovesomethingmoretoconnectthisaccused
tothehilt.
190.
ImaypointoutthatinthecaseCCNo.1/2010,which
pertainedtoasimilarfraudcommittedinNirankariColonyPost
Office, I had relied upon the testimonies of the aforesaid
witnessesbuttherewasalsoanunmistakableevidenceofhand
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
identitysliptakenbyaccusedH.N.PalfromLalaRamBharti
andusingthestampsofDadriPostOfficeontheKVPs,thefraud
wascommittedinHariNagarAshramPostOffice.Thereforethe
handsoflawreachuptothisaccusedbutfallshortofcatching
hisneck.AccordinglyIgivebenefitofreasonabledoubttothis
accusedandacquithim.
Conspiracy
191.
Ithasbeenarguedbyalltheaccusedpersonsthatthereis
noevidencethattheaccusedpersonshaveevermeteachother.
Henceitisarguedthatnooffenceofconspiracyisdisclosed.I
disagreewiththedefencesubmissions.Onarrest,accusedK.M.
CCNo.19/2009Page112/121
Singh had disclosed the names of accused Sohan Pal Sharma

(A2),LaxmanPrasad(A3)andSatishPalSingh(A7)alongwith
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,
investigationstartedandduringinvestigationseightblankNC32
forms with the handwritingof accused Satish PalSingh were
recoveredattheinstanceofaccusedK.M.Singh. Thisaspect
hasalreadybeendealtbymeinearlierpartofthisjudgement.
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
handwritingexpertsasdiscussedabove.Imaymentionthatin
hisdisclosurestatementdated27.6.1999accusedK.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
statedthathewasatenantofSohanPalSharma,whichfortifies
CCNo.19/2009Page113/121
theprosecutioncaseandthedisclosurestatementofK.M.Singh
thatLaxmanPrasadwasacloseconfidanteofaccusedSohanPal
Sharma. Asstatedearlier,thehandwritingofLaxmanPrasad
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
PrasadhasimpersonatedasHariPrasadafakeholderofthe
KVPsandgot encahsed 527 KVPs. It needs to bementioned
here that accused Rohtash Kanwar was charged with having
impersonatedasRameshKumarSharmaandfraudulentlygot
encashed383KVPsandhewasconvictedonhispleaofguilt.
The entire conspiracy originates from accused K. M. Singh.
Though there is no direct evidence of the accused persons
havingmeteachotherbutthechainofcircumstancesleavesno
other option but to hold that they were colluding with each
otherincommissionoftheseoffences. AccusedK.M.Singhis
thehiddenfacebehindtheentireconspiracy,whereasaccused
Sohan Pal Sharma and Laxman Prasad (as well as Rohtash
Kanwar,A4)werethefrontmenexecutingtheconspiracy. At
thecostofrepetition,Iwouldsaythatrecoveryofblankforms
NC32havingbeendulystampedwiththestampofHariNagar
CCNo.19/2009Page114/121
AshramPostOfficewiththeendorsementandinitialsofaccused
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
theseblankKVPsdulystampedandendorsedfortransferis
that the particulars of stolen KVPs were to be filled in these
formssothataftermakingthefakeverificationoftheseKVPs,
thesamemaybepresentedtoHariNagarAshramPostOffice
andsuchstolenKVPsaregotencashedfromthesaidpostoffice.
Needless to say that KVPs are valuable securities within the
definitionofSection30IPCandforgeryofthesamefallswithin
thefourcornersofSection467IPC.
192.
Inviewofabovediscussions,accusedHariNarainPal(A6)
stands acquitted. However I convict Krishan Madhwa Singh

(A1), Sohan Pal Sharma @ Panditji (A2), Laxman Prasad @
Thakur(A3)andSatishPalSingh(A7)underSection120BIPC
read with Section 419/420/467/471 IPC read with Section
13(1)(d)readwithSection13(2)ofPreventionofCorruption
Act1988.
193.
I further convict accused Sohan Pal Sharma @ Panditji
(A2)andLaxmanPrasad(A3)underSection419/420/467/471
CCNo.19/2009Page115/121
IPC.
194.
IfurtherconvictaccusedSatishPalSinghunderSection
Act1988becausehehadabusedhispowersbyhandingoverto
accused K. M. Singh the blank NC32 forms by making
endorsementoffortransferandputtingastampofhispost
office.
Announcedintheopen
courton17.8.2012.
(VINODKUMAR)
Spl.Judge,CBIII
Rohini,Delhi
CCNo.19/2009Page116/121
INTHECOURTOFSH.VINODKUMAR
SPLECIALJUDGEII(P.C.ACT,CBI),ROHINI,DELHI
RCNo.S19/1999/E0001/SPE/SIUIX
CCNo.19/2009
(HariNagarAshramPostOffice,Delhi)
CBIVs
(1) KrishanMadhwaSingh
S/oSh.JaiNathSingh
R/oJ130,Sector09,VijayNagar,Ghaziabad.
(2) SohanPalSharma@Panditji
S/oSh.DeepChand
R/oD74,GangaVihar,Delhi94.
(3) LaxmanPrasad@Thakur
S/oLateSh.KalpnathPrasad
R/oC120,StreetNo.5,GangaVihar,Delhi94.
(4) SatishPalSingh
S/oSh.KeharSingh
R/oC33,LIGFlats,EastofLoniRoad,
Shahdara,Delhi
18.8.2012
ORDERONSENTENCE
1.
ItisarguedbySh.KedarYadav,adv.,Ld.AmicusCuriefor
convictKrishanMadhwaSinghthatheis56yearsoldandisthe
sole bread winner and that it is his first conviction. It is
submitted by Sh. Kedar Yadav, adv. that convict Sohan Pal
Sharma, aged69years,hasonlyoneson,whohasalsobeen
convictedinanothercaseofKVPfraudandnowbothareinjail.
CCNo.19/2009Page117/121
It is submitted that wife of convict Sohan Pal Sharma has

alreadyexpired,thereforeonlyhisdaughterinlawisleftinthe
familytolookaftertwomentallyretardedchildrenofhisson.It
isfurtherarguedbySh.KedarYadav,adv.,Ld.AmicusCuriefor
convict Laxman Prasad that he is 60 years old having three
childrenandhasonlybeenconvictedinoneanothercaseofKVP
scaminwhichonlyasentenceofthreeyearswasawardedto
him.
2.
ItisfurtherarguedbySh.KedarYadav,adv.,Ld.Amicus
CuriethatconvictSatishPalSinghhassixchildren,outofwhich
fouraredaughtersofmarriageableageandifheissentenced,
hisentirefamilywouldcomeonroad.
3.
Itisthereforeprayedthatalenientviewmaybetakenand
minimumsentenceshouldbeawarded.
4.
Ld.PublicProsecutorhoweverpraysformaximumdozeof
sentenceinviewofthegravityoftheoffence.
5.
I have considered the submissions. The offences are

indeed very serious and the facts submitted by Ld. Defence
Counselarenotweightyenoughtotakealenientview.
6.
I therefore sentence convict Krishan Madhwa Singh to

rigorousimprisonmentforsevenyearsandafineinthesumof
Rs.1000/ under Section 120B IPC read with Section
CCNo.19/2009Page118/121
419/420/467/471 IPC read with Section 13(1)(d) read with

Section13(2)ofPreventionofCorruptionAct1988.Indefault
of payment of fine heshallundergosimple imprisonmentfor
onemonth.
7.
I sentence convict Sohan Pal Sharma @ Panditji and

LaxmanPrasad@Thakurtorigorousimprisonmentforseven
years andafineinthesumof Rs.1000/ underSection120B
IPCreadwithSection419/420/467/471IPCreadwithSection
Act 1988. In default of payment of fine they shall undergo
simpleimprisonmentforonemontheach.
8.

LaxmanPrasad@Thakurtorigorousimprisonmentforseven
years andafineinthesumof Rs.1000/ underSection 467
IPC. Indefaultofpaymentoffinetheyshallundergosimple
imprisonmentforonemontheach.
9.

LaxmanPrasad@Thakurtorigorousimprisonmentforthree
CCNo.19/2009Page119/121
10.
11.
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
Section13(2)ofPreventionofCorruptionAct1988.Indefault
of payment of fine heshallundergosimple imprisonmentfor
onemonth.
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
PreventionofCorruptionAct 1988. Indefaultofpaymentof
fineheshallundergosimpleimprisonmentforonemonth.
CCNo.19/2009Page120/121
14.
Allthesentencesshallrunconcurrently. Incaseanyof
the convicts had remained in judicial custody in this case,

benefitunderSection428CrPCmaybegiventohim.
15.The sentence warrants be prepared and file be consigned to
recordroom.
Announcedintheopen
courton18.8.2012.
(VINODKUMAR)
Spl.Judge,CBIII
Rohini,Delhi
CCNo.19/2009Page121/121

Kisan Vikas Patra Scam CBI Court Delhi Judgement

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Kisan Vikas Patra Scam CBI Court Delhi Judgement

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

CBIVsK.M.Singhetc.Judgementdt.17.8.

Prosecution story as unfolded during the trial is that

Investigation has further revealed that accused K. M.

Singh (A1) in conspiracy with coaccused Laxman Prasad @

and accused Satish Pal Singh (A7) had together worked at

Investigatgion has revealed that the accused Sohan Pal

Investigation has further revealed that in furtherance to

(A2) was in possession of three blank NC32 Forms seized

and accused H. N. Pal @ Neta (A6) got prepared round

KVPs bearing serial no. 28CC970343 to 28CC970348

to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 19.2.99 and presented

KVPs bearing serial no. 45CC163341 to 45CC163350

Investigation has thus revealed that accused Laxman

Government of India by fraudulent means to the tune of Rs.

Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Sohan Pal

Sharma @ Panditji (A2) personating himself as Harpal Singh

Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Sohan Pal

Sharma @ Panditji (A2) personating himself as Harpal Singh

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

Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Sohan Pal

Sharma @ Panditji (A2) personating himself as Harpal Singh

Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Sohan Pal

Sharma @ Panditji (A2) personating himself as Harpal Singh

Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.86,500/ to him

Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Sohan Pal

Sharma @ Panditji (A2) personating himself as Harpal Singh

Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Sohan Pal

Sharma @ Panditji (A2) personating himself as Harpal Singh

Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Sohan Pal

Sharma @ Panditji (A2) personating himself as Harpal Singh

purported to have been issued from Karnal Head Post Office

Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Sohan Pal

Sharma @ Panditji (A2) personating himself as Harpal Singh

Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Sohan Pal

Sharma @ Panditji (A2) personating himself as Harpal Singh

Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Sohan Pal

Sharma @ Panditji (A2) personating himself as Harpal Singh

went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 12.12.98 and

Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Sohan Pal

Sharma @ Panditji (A2) personating himself as Harpal Singh

Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Sohan Pal

Sharma @ Panditji (A2) personating himself as Harpal Singh

Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Sohan Pal

Sharma @ Panditji (A2) personating himself as Harpal Singh

Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Sohan Pal

Sharma @ Panditji (A2) personating himself as Harpal Singh

Investigation has thus revealed that accused Sohan Pal

personating himself as Ramesh Kumar Sharma went to Hari

Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Rohtash

Kanwar personating himself as Ramesh Kumar Sharma again

Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Rohtash

Kanwar personating himself as Ramesh Kumar Sharma again

Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Rohtash

Kanwar personating himself as Ramesh Kumar Sharma again

Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Rohtash

Kanwar personating himself as Ramesh Kumar Sharma again

Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Rohtash

Kanwar personating himself as Ramesh Kumar Sharma again

purported to have been issued from Batwadi Post Office

Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Rohtash

Kanwar personating himself as Ramesh Kumar Sharma again

Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Rohtash