IN THE COURT OF JAGDEEP JAIN, SPECIAL JUDGE, CBI COURT, CHANDIGARH. COMPUTER I.D. NO:-36014R0157882005. CORRUPTION CASE NO:-5.

DATE OF INSTITUTION:-17.4.1996. DATE OF DECISION:- 2.8.2008. Central Bureau of Investigation Versus 1. Ajit Parsad Jain, son of Inder Sain Jain, aged 63 years, resident of House No.645, Sector 6, Panchkula. Bachna Ram, son of Mangta Ram, aged 57 years, resident of village Dehora Post Office Keorak, the. & Distt. Kaithal, Haryana. Samey Singh Kamboj, son of Sadhu Ram, aged 47 years, resident of Village Sandholi, P.O. Cumchalrao, Distt. Yamuna Nagar, Haryana. Devi Dayal, son of late Mani Ram, aged 69 years, R/o Village & Post Office Chuli Bagria, the. Adampur, Distt. Hissar, Haryana. Sukhdev Singh, son of Veer Singh, aged 46 years resident of Village and Post Office Barangudha, Distt. Sirsa Haryana. Rao Inder Pal Singh, son of Dalip Singh aged 46 years, resident of V &PO Dharuhera, the. & Distt. Riwari. Dalbir singh, son of Gurbax Singh Punia, aged 40 years, resident of Village Nurpur, P.O. Baroula, the & Distt. Ambala, Haryana. Mohinder Singh, son of Om Parkash, aged 36 years, resident of village Baganwala, P.O. Tosham, Distt. Bhiwani, Haryana. Raj Singh, son of Manphool Singh, aged 42 years, resident of Village Narainpur, P.O.
1

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8. 9.

Sarniwas, Distt. Rewari, Haryana. 10. Mahabir Singh, son of Sarup Singh aged 46 years, resident of V &PO Kharati, the. Meham, Distt. Rohtak, Haryana. 11. Puneet Jain, son of Ajit Parsad Jain, aged 35 years, resident of House No. 645, Sector 6, Panchkula, Haryana. 12. Ajay Pal Kanswan, son of Jaswant Singh aged 38 years, resident of 44/3, Court Colony, Sirsa (Haryana). 13. Rakesh Kumar, son of Hem Raj, aged 35 years, resident of V&PO Sahuwala-II,Teh. & Distt. Sirsa (Haryana). 14. Harbhajan Singh, son of Arjan Dass, aged 36, resident of Village Mehna Khera, P.O. Umedpura, Tehsil Ellendbad, Distt. Sirsa ( Haryana). 15. Surinder Kumar, son of Ram Kishan aged 36 years, Village Tej Akhera, the. Dabwali, P.S. Chutala, Distt. Sirsa (Haryana). 16. Ramesh Kumar, son of Harsarup, aged 42 years, resident of House No.240, Ward No.14, Ram Dai Gate Balmiki Basti, Jind Haryana. 17. Bajir Lal, son of Naram Singh, aged 38 years, resident of Village and Post Office Khirmpura, Adampur, Hissar, Haryana. 18. Jagat Pal, son of Jai, Singh aged 33 years, Office of Co-operative Marketing Secretary, Hissar, Haryana. 19. Chander Bhan, son of Parsa Ram, aged 36 years, resident of Village and Post Office Pegan, the. & Distt. Jind ( Haryana). 20. Ram Singh, son of Balu Ram, aged 36 years, resident of Village and Post Office Choudhrivas, Distt. Hissar (Haryana). .......Accused.
2

FIR No. RC-20/91-CHG,dated 4.11.91, under Sections 120-B, read with 420 of Indian Penal Code, 420, 467, 468,471,511 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. P.S. CBI/SPE/ACB, Chandigarh. Present:Shri R.L. Negi, Sr. Public Prosecutor for C.B.I. Accused A.P. Jain and Puneet on bail being assisted by Shri A.S. Chahal Advocate. Accused Devi Dayal on bail being assisted by Shri Jaspal Singh Advocate. Accused Bachana Ram and Samey Singh on bail being assisted by Shri V.B. Aggarwal Advocate. Accused Chander Bhan on bail being assisted by Shri Anil Mahajan Advocate. Accused Mohinder Singh on bail being assisted by Shri Sunil Kumar Advocate. Accused Dalbir Singh on bail being assisted by Shri Ajit Pal Singh Advocate. Accused Rakesh Kumar, Surinder Kumar, Raj singh, Bazir Lal, Ram Singh, Ajay Pal, Mahavir, Ramesh Kumar, Jagat Pal and Harbhajan Singh,Sukhdev Singh and Rao Inder Pal Singh on bail being assisted by Shri K.K. Aggarwal, Senior Advocate and Shri Pawan Kumar Kukreja Advocates.
3

J U D G M E N T:As per prosecution version, the

Subordinate Services Selection Board ( In short S.S.S. Board) Haryana advertised in Excise 96 and posts of

Taxation

Inspectors

Taxation

Department Haryana vide advertisement No. 5/86, dated 22.11.1986. The same number of posts were

re-advertised vide number 3/88 dated 7.7.1988. Selection was to be made on the basis of written test of was 250 marks and viva-voce of 100 marks. It clear that the candidates who had

made

earlier applied against advertisement No. 5/86 were not required to apply again and previous valid. applications were to be that their considered

Accordingly the written examinations were at various centres in Haryana on

conducted

17.12.1988 and 18.12.1988.

At that time, the

Chairman of the Board was Shri Anand Singh Dangi. Bachna Ram, Devi Dayal, Samey Singh Kamboj,

Sukhdev Singh, Rao Inder Pal and Nirpal Singh Malik were the members. R.P. Sukhija. The Secretary was Shri

2.

The result of written tests was declared

4

on were

15.9.1989. formed for

The following three committees conducting at interviews of the and

successful Karnal.

candidates

Pinjore,

Hissar

Committee-A for Pinjore. MEMBERS 1. 2. 3. 4. Anand Singh Dangi, Chairman. Rao Inderpal Singh. Nirpal Singh Malik. H.M.L. Miglani, Joint Excise &

Taxation Commissioner. In Clerical Staff. 1. 2. Ranjit Singh Mor, Clerk. Shanker Lal, Peon.

Committee-B for Hissar. MEMBERS 1. 2. 3. Sukhdev Singh. Devi Dayal. M.L. Sharma, Joint Excise & Taxation Commissioner as Advisor In Clerical Staff. 1. 2. Narinder Singh Sandhu,Assistant. Randhir Assistant.

3. 4.

Meer Singh, Peon. Faquir Singh, Peon.

Committee-C for Karnal. MEMBERS 1. 2. 3. Bachna Ram. Samey Singh Kamboj, M.P. Jain, Joint Excise & Taxation Commissioner as Advisor. In Clerical Staff. 1. 2. Jagdish,Clerk. Dharam Pal, Peon.

3.

Interviews

were

to

be

conducted

on

3.10.1989 to 12.10.1989.

About 200 candidates

were to be interviewed on each day. On 16.10.1989 the Board decided to conduct interview of five

candidates in the Head Office at Manimajra on 19.10.1989 by the members Bachna Ram, Samey Singh Kamboj, Devi Dayal and M.L. Sharma, Joint Excise

and Taxation Commissioner.

4.

Shri

A.P.

Jain

took

over

charge

of

Secretary of the Board on 5.10.1989 from Shri

R.P.

Sukhija

on

5.10.1989.

Shri

Anand

Singh

Dangi resigned from the post of Chairman of the Board on selection Inspectors. left the 29.1.1990 without preparing the final list for the post of Taxation

On 5.3.1990 Nirpal Singh Malik also On 5.4.1990, The Govt. of

Board.

Haryana issued notification appointing Shri Bani Singh Balhara as Chairman of the Board. He took

over the charge on 6.4.1990. On the same day, A.P. Jain forwarded the recommendation of 84

candidates to the Excise & Taxation Commissioner. This was followed of 12 by another list vide of

recommendation

candidates

letter

dated 20.4.1990.

5. the writ

After a few days of the declaration of final selection, in certain candidates High filed of The of

petitions

the

Hon'ble

Court

Punjab & Haryana challenging the selections. Hon'ble record. 5.6.1990. 10.9.1990. High Court ordered for production

Accordingly the record was produced on The Writ petitions were dismissed on

6. 1990, Hon'ble

In Criminal Writ Petition No. 633390 of Yogya High Dutt Vs. State had, of Haryana, order the

Court

vide

dated

7.5.1990, directed that the answer books be kept intact and and be not destroyed so as to be In pursuance of

produced at the time of hearing.

this order Shri A.P. Jain filed an affidavit on 25.5.1990 informing the Hon'ble High Court that the answer sheets had already been destroyed on 27.12.1989.

7.

One of the candidates Shri Pawan Kumar

had filed a complaint in the Court of Senior Sub Judge, Chandigarh in which the Secretary of the Board was ordered to file an affidavit for not destroying the record. Jain filed affidavit Accordingly, Shri A.P. dated 17.5.1990. On

18.5.1990 the then Senior Sub Judge Chandigarh ordered for production of record. It was

produced and sealed on 8.6.1990.

8.

The SLP Nos. 4425/81 and 14440/91 were

filed in the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Vide order dated 9.10.1991, the Hon'ble Court directed Govt.

of Haryana to refer the matter to the CBI for holding an investigation into the matter. pursuance of this direction, the matter In was

referred to the CBI which registered the case. The record that had been sealed in pursuance of the orders passed by the Senior Sub Judge,

Chandigarh was taken over by the CBI.

9.

Investigation

revealed

that

various

examiners to whom answer sheets had been sent for evaluation prepared award lists indicating

fictitious roll numbers.

On the basis of award

lists the key book was filled up and, on the basis of the key book a list of successful

candidates in the written test was prepared by the confidential branch and roll number wise list of such candidates was displayed on the notice board on 15.9.1989 under the signatures of Shri

R.P. Sukhija.

10.

It transpired that the final selection 130 candidates was

list containing the names of

so prepared as to select even those who had not qualified the written test and when selections

were challenged and the Board was directed to produce the record, a note dated 27.12.1989 was fabricated to show that the answer sheets have been destroyed whereas in his note dated

2.2.1990, A.P. Jain had recorded that the entire record relating to interview, examination key and award lists was available in the office. In

order to justify the selections, duplicate award lists were got prepared by Shri A.P. Jain with the assistance of Mohar Singh, Bhupinder Pal

Singh, Veer Sain, Jagdev Singh and Suresh Kumar Vashisht etc. In the process changes were made

in the marks obtained by the candidates.

11. the of were

It was further revealed that to justify selection of the candidates a large numbers additions, made in alternations the and interpolations sheets by the

interview

officials Veer Sain,

viz. Mohar Singh, Bhupinder Pal Singh, Jagdev Singh Suresh Kumar Vashisht

etc. on being compelled and misled by Shri A.P. Jain. These officials were even asked by Shri

A.P. Jain to forge the signatures of the Board members namely Bachna Ram, Samey Singh Kamboj,

10

Devi

Dayal

and

Sukhdev

Singh

on

various

documents.

The signatures of

Anand Singh Dangi

on the note dated 27.12.1989 were also forged by one of the officials at the instance of Shri A.P. Jain. Some of the forged documents were signed

by Rao Inderpal Singh, Devi Dayal, Bachna Ram, Samey Singh Kamboj and Sukhdev Singh in back

dates so as to show that those documents were authentic and genuine. In this process candidates viz. Dalbir Singh, Mahender Jain, Singh, Ajay Raj Singh,

Mahabir

Singh,

Puneet

Pal

Kanswan,

Rakesh Kumar, Harbhajan singh, surinder Kumar, Ramesh Kumar, Bajir Lal, Jagat Pal, Chander Bhan and Ram Singh were shown to have been interviewed whereas they had not even qualified the written test.

12.

It was revealed that on some occasions

Bachna Ram and Devi Dayal used to be present in the room when the record was being forged at the instance above. of A.P. Jain by the officials named

13.

Investigation

revealed

that

A.P.

Jain

11

filed

affidavit

that

he

will

not

destroy

the

available records. The entire record including key book, award lists and result of the written test was available with him but that record was removed or destroyed. As a result thereof, there

was no record available in the office of the Board which could indicate the marks obtained by the candidates in the written test. Similarly,

the Investigating Officer could not lay hands on the basic record like key book, answer books and award list.

14.

On completion of investigation it was

concluded that a conspiracy was hatched between the accused named above and in pursuance of that conspiracy those candidates who had not qualified the written test were selected for the posts of Taxation Inspectors for and their names were Dalbir

recommended

appointment.

Whereas

Singh, Mahender Singh, Raj Singh, Mahabir Singh, Puneet Jain, Ajay Pal Kanswan, Rakesh Kumar,

Harbhajan Singh, Surinder Kumar, Ramesh Kumar, Jagat Ram and Ram Singh were issued appointment letters and they all joined as such, due to

12

certain technical reasons Bajir Lal and Chander Bhan could not be issued appointment letters.

When the matter came to light, the record was fabricated and the original record was replaced or destroyed with a view to justify the

selections.

15.

After obtaining sanction for prosecution

of A.P. Jain, charge sheet was filed.

16. copies

The accused appeared and were supplied of charge sheet in along with of the the

accompanying

documents

compliance

provisions of Section 207 of the code of Criminal Procedure.

17.

Finding prima facie case, charges under

Section 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code and under with Section 13 (2) Sections of the 13 (1) (d) read Prevention of

Corruption Act were framed against persons.

the accused

Besides this charges under Section 420

read with Section 511 of Indian Penal Code were separately framed against A.P. Jain, Bachna Ram,

13

Devi Dayal, Samey Singh Kamboj, Sukhdev Singh, Rao Inder Pal Singh Bajir Lal and Chander Bhan. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

18.

To

prove

its

case,

the

prosecution

examined 72 witnesses.

These witnesses can be

divided into following categories. The candidates who had appeared for interviews but whose signatures were forged on fabricated attendance sheets. I. PW1 Krishan Kumar.

II. PW2 Lalit Kumar. III. PW3 Ravi Kumar. IV. PW4 Rajesh Kumar. V. PW5 Raj Kumar.

VI. PW6 Mohammad Yunus. VII. PW7 Naresh Kumar. VIII.PW9 Pawan Kumar. IX. PW10 Mahavir Singh. X. PW11 Om Parkash.

XI. PW13 Mohinder Singh. XII. PW15 Om Parkash. XIII.PW16 Krishan Yadav. XIV. PW42 Pawan Kumar. XV. PW43 Minakshi.

14

XVI. PW44 M.K. Puri.

19.

All

the

aforementioned

witnesses

have

stated in unison that they had qualified written test and had at appeared Pinjore for interviews had signed on the

6.10.1989

and

attendance sheet, but the attendance sheet ExP6 does not bear their signatures and; that their signatures have been forged.

The Witnesses in whose presence Handwriting/Signatures were taken. PW-32 Suresh Chand.

Specimen

Specimen writings of Yashpal (ExPW32/1 to10). Specimen writings and signatures of Bachna Ram (ExPW45/1 to 17), Samey Singh Kamboj (PW45/18 to49), Devi Dayal (PW45/50 to 76), Veer Sen ExPW45/77 to 89), Jagat Pal (ExPW45/90 to 98). Specimen Signatures of Nirpal Singh Malik (ExPW46/1 to 4) and A.S. Dangi(PW46/5 to 8). Specimen signatures of Sukhdev Singh (ExPW47/1to 10).

PW-45 Parmod Kumar.

PW-46 G.S. Verma

PW-47 Darshan Singh.

15

PW-48 R.K. Verma.

PW-49 Chawla Ram,

PW-50 Darshan Singh.

Specimen signatures/writing of Sukhdev Singh (PW48/1 to 26), Rao Inder Pal (ExPW48/27 to 41) and Mahavir Sharma (ExPW48/42 to 76). Specimen signatures/writing of Bachna Ram (ExPW49/1) to 10). Specimen Signatures/writing of Samey Singh Kamboj (ExPW50/1 to 10). Specimen signatures/writing Rao Inder Pal (ExPW51/1 to 9). of

PW51

Tarlochan Singh.

PW52 Ram Kumar.

Specimen signatures of Rao Inder Pal Singh (ExPW52/1 to 10). (Hostile). Specimen writings/signatures of Rao Inder Pal (ExPW53/1 to 10). Specimen writings of Chet Ram (ExPW54/1 to 8). Specimen handwriting of Om Parkash (ExPW 56/1 to 5). Specimen handwriting of Om Parkash (ExPW57/1 to 3). Specimen handwriting of Pawan Kumar (ExPW58/1 to 3). Specimen handwriting
16

PW-53 Shiv Kumar.

PW-54 Ashok Kumar.

PW-56 Ram Phal Singh.

PW-57 Dharamvir.

PW-58 Rajinder Kumar

PW-59 Rajesh Gupta.

of A.P. Jain (ExPW59/1 to 10). PW-60 Anand Rana. Specimen signatures & initials of A.P. Jain (ExPW59/1 to 10). Specimen writing of Veer Sen (ExPW61/1 to 23),Specimen signatures/writings of Sukhdev Singh (ExPW61/24 to 27). Specimen Signatures of Pawan Kumar (ExPW62/1 to 4). Specimen signatures of Ravi Kumar (ExPW63/1 &2). Specimen signatures/writings of Harbhajan Singh (ExPW68/1 to 16). Specimen writing of Mohar Singh (ExPW69/1 to 7), specimen writings of Bhupinder Pal (ExPW69/8 to 19), specimen writing of Ajay Pal (ExPW69/20 to 23).

PW-61 Jatinder Sahai.

PW-62 Paramjit Karwal.

PW-63 Rajneesh Kumar.

PW-68 S.P. Gupta.

PW-69 Dr. Ved Parkash.

The Witnesses who assisted Board members as Advisors while conducting interviews. PW-20 Harmohinder Lal Miglani, Joint Excise & Taxation Commissioner. PW-21 Mahavir Parsad,Joint Excise & Taxation
17

He attended the meetings at Pinjore. He attended the meetings at

Commissioner. PW-24

Karnal.

Mohan Lal, Joint He attended the Excise & Taxation meeting at Commissioner. Hissar. The Witnesses (Clerical Staff) who assisted the Board Members in conducting interviews. He was deputed to assist the committee at Karnal. He was deputed to assist the committee at Pinjore. He was deputed to assist the committee at Hissar. He was deputed to assist the committee at Hissar. of the

PW-23 Jagdish Kumar.

PW-25 Ranjit Singh.

PW-33 Mir Singh.

PW34. Ram Dhari.

The Officials/Officers S.S.Board. I. PW14 Pan Singh Rawat.

II. PW17 Vejinder Singh. III. PW19 Sher Singh. IV. PW22 R.P. Sukhija. V. PW29 Birbal Prasad.

VI. PW36 Mohar Singh. VII. PW38 Mohinder Singh Madan. VIII.PW55 Hari Singh. IX. PW 67 Ram Parsad.

The part timers who made interpolations/additions/alterations in the record.

18

I.

PW8 Roshan Lal.

II. PW18 Rajeev Kumar. III. PW27 Mahavir. IV. PW28 Bhupinder Pal Singh. V. PW66 Veer Sen.

Other Witnesses. PW-12 Navraj Sandhu. She was working as Deputy Secretary and in her presence CBI seized certain documents vide memo PW12/1. He was working as Cashier in the S.S. Board and has deposed about the procedure of rechecking. He proved Exs PW30/1 and 2 which are interview letters and according to him the same were signed by F.C. Khurmi, Superintendent of the Board. According to him he had prepared affidavit and written statement on the instruction/information supplied to him by A.P. Jain. He attested the Particulars of one Mohinder Singh. He was working as Assistant Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner and was called to the office of C.M. Haryana so as to
19

PW-26 Attar Singh.

PW-30 Ravi Dutt.

PW-31 N.K. Goyal.

PW-35 Bhaskar Chatterjee. PW-37 Sher Singh.

tell him to issue appointment letters to the Taxation Inspectors at the earliest. PW-39 Tara Chand. According to this witness he attested memo ExPW39/1 whereby some record was seized by the CBI. According to this witness Some record was seized by the CBI vide memo ExPW40/1 which he attested. This witness proved his Nothings ExsPW41/2 to PW41/27. This witness deposed about the fact of A.P. Jain having retired on 31.8.1994.

PW-40Baljit Singh.

PW-41 Brij Mohan Sharma. PW-65 Saudager.

PW-70 M.C. Gupta. As Chief Secretary to the State of Haryana he accorded sanction ExPW70/1 for prosecution of A.P. Jain. Handwriting Expert. PW-71 R.K. Jain. CBI Officers. PW-64 Sudip Roy. This witness obtained specimen writing/signatures of Sukhdev Singh, Bachna Ram, Rao Inder Pal Singh and Samey Singh Kamboj. He investigated the case.

PW-72 S.L.Gupta.

20.

On

conclusion

of

the

prosecution

evidence, statements of the accused were recorded

20

under

Section

313

of they

the

Code

of

Criminal and

Procedure,

wherein

pleaded

innocence

claimed that they have been falsely implicated. Following is the the crux of the statements. A.P. Jain. I am innocent. because The of case some to be

registered between

tussle and the

the

Government

Members of the Board.

I and my son

have been falsely implicated in the case. I gave charge to Sh. R.P.

Sukhija vide ExPW24/26 and then again I took over charge from him vide

ExPW14/34. The documents handed over and taken over during the above

referred charges have been mentioned in the above referred documents but in ExPW14/34 there has been tampering by addition of record shown at Sr. No.7. only In the year 1986, there were four members of the Board in

addition to the Chairman and as such, in ExPW14/26 to the the interview Chairman sheets four

relating

and

21

other members as M-1, M-II, M-III and M-IV have been stated in the above referred documents. Similarly in the

year 1989 the Board was having six members excluding the Chairman as two new members were appointed by the

Government. So in ExPW14/34 from Sr. No.1 to 6 to the interview sheets of

relating

Taxation

Inspectors

the Chairman and other four members have been shown. Sr. No.7 was It again shows that interpolated I in was the not

document

subsequently.

having the possession or custody of the answer list and books, of key book, award

list, sheets

examiner, result of

interview written

examination of Taxation Inspectors at any point of time when I functioned as a Secretary of the Board. The

members of the Board filed affidavit in the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 29th and 31st August, 1991 to the effect that they had destroyed the

22

award books

list on

along

with

the The

answer Chairman

27.12.1989.

also gave an affidavit in the Hon'ble Supreme effect. Court of India to this

This being so, there was no

question for me to tamper with any document at any point of time. Bachna Ram. I am innocent. I am a practicing Lawyer at Kaithal and also dedicated worker of I.N.L.D. (Indian National Lok Dal). The

case is a politically motivated which is a result of by unfair the and CBI improper under the

investigation

Pressure of Opposite political party who was in power at the relevant time. I have not forged and fabricated any I any

document or the record of the Board. had no personal interest in

candidate because no one was my relative or friend. Samey Singh. I am innocent. of B.J.P.
23

am

dedicated case is a

worker

This

politically motivated which is a result of unfair and improper investigation by the CBI under the pressure of opposite political party who was in power at the relevant time. I have not forged and

fabricated any document or the record of the Board. in any I had no personal no

interest

candidate

because

one was my relative or friend.

Devi Dayal. I am innocent. registered The case has been I

falsely

against

me.

discharged my duty as a member of the board and the entire record thereafter was sent to the office when it was

sealed by the other officials and no signatures were ever antedated and that my signatures have been forged as has been admitted. Sukhdev Singh. The case has been falsely registered against me. I am totally innocent and have nothing to do with the alleged

24

conspiracy in this case.

As already

submitted earlier, I have in fact been just a casual visitor at the interviews held at Hissar. Rao Inderpal Singh. The case has been falsely registered against me. I am totally innocent and have nothing to do with the alleged

conspiracy in this case.

As already

submitted earlier, I have in fact been just a casual visitor at the interviews held at Hissar.

21.

Accused

Dalbir

Singh,

Mahender

Singh,

Mahabir Singh, Raj Singh, Puneet Jain, Ajay Pal Kaswan, Rakesh Kumar, Harbhajan Singh, Surinder Kumar, Ramesh Kumar, Bajir Lal, Jagat Pal,

Chander Bhan and Ram Singh pleaded that they were selected on merits.

22.

In

defence

the

accused

A.P.

Jain

examined the co-accused Devi Dayal as DW1, Samey Singh as DW2 and Bachna Ram as DW3. In fact, accused A.P. Jain wanted Devi Dayal, Samey Singh

25

and Bachna Ram to admit or deny the affidavits filed Court. on their behalf in the Hon'ble order Supreme dated

This

was

declined

vide

24.3.2008.

Subsequently the original affidavits At that stage, accused A.P.

were got produced.

Jain requested that he be granted permission to examine Devi Dayal, Samey Singh and Bachna Ram. It is in this background the permission was

granted.

23.

have

heard

the

learned

Public

Prosecutor and learned counsel for the accused.

24.

Following points need to be determined:the accused persons to entered deceive into the

I. Whether criminal

conspiracy

Subordinate Services Selection Board and the Govt. into selecting wrong candidates. II.Whether the accused Dalbir Singh, Mohinder Singh, Jain, Raj Ajay Singh, Pal Mahabir Kanswan, Surinder Singh, Rakesh Kumar, Puneet Kumar, Ramesh

Harbhajan

Singh,

Kumar Bajir Lal, Jagat Pal, Chander Bhan and Ram singh were placed in selection list for

26

the posts of Taxation Inspectors despite the fact that they had not qualified the written test. III. Whether the record was tampered with in order to justify the selections. IV. What is the effect of non-arraigning, as accused, of those officials who admittedly made interpolations/alterations/forgery in

the record.

25.

As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

P.K. Narayanan Vs. State of Kerala (1995) 1 SCC 142 the essence of criminal conspiracy is an

agreement to do an illegal act or for doing by illegal means an act which by itself may not be illegal. Such agreement can be proved either by by circumstantial evidence or

direct evidence or

by both and it is a matter of common experience that direct evidence to prove conspiracy is

rarely available.

Therefore, the circumstances

proved before, during and after the occurrence have to be considered to decide about the

complicity of the accused.

27

26. facts:I. of

There is no dispute about the following

Written examinations for the recruitment posts of Taxation Inspectors were

conducted on 17.12.1988 and 18.12.1988.

II. At

the

time

when

written

exams

were

conducted the Secretary of the Board was Shri R.P. Sukhija Shri Anand Singh Dangi was the Chairman and Bachna Ram, Devi Dayal, Samey

Singh Kamboj, Sukhdev Singh, Rao Inder Pal and Nirpal Singh Malik were the members.

III.

Interviews of the candidates who were

successful in written exams were conducted at three centres from 3.10.1989 to 12.10.1989. Besides this five candidates were interviewed at the head office on 19.10.1989.

IV. Accused A.P. Jain took over charge of Secretary from R.P. Sukhija on 5.10.1989.

VI. Shri 29.1.19990

Anand and

Singh then

Dangi Nirpal

resigned Singh

on

Malik

28

resigned on 5.3.1990.

VII.

On 6.4.1990, Bani Singh Balhara took

over as Chairman of the Board and on the same day the recommendation of 84 candidates was made. Another list of recommendation was

sent to the Govt. on 20.4.1990.

VIII.

In

writ

petitions

challenging

selections, record was produced before the Hon'ble High Court on 5.6.1990 and the writ petitions were dismissed on 10.9.1990.

IX.

The record was produced in the Court

of then learned Senior Sub Judge, Chandigarh where it was sealed on 8.6.1990.

27. accused

The crux of the allegations against the is that entire record including key

book, award list, answer books and the result of written test was available when the selections were challenged, but in order to justify wrong selections the record was either removed or

destroyed and then the interview sheets and the

29

answer sheets were tampered with; resolution of the board had was been fabricated destroyed to on show that answer and

books

27.12.1989;

false marks sheet and merit list were prepared.

28. to

The first and foremost question is as whether the interview sheets and the

attendance sheets were tampered with. context I have taken up the evidence and centre-wise as under:-

In this record

Karnal centre. 1) Material Witnesses:1. PW 21 Mahavir

Prashad Jain. 2. PW 23 Kumar. Jagdish

2)

Relevant Record a) i) For 6th October 1989. Advisor's copy of Interview sheet. ii) Member's copy of Interview sheet. iii) Attendance sheet. ExPW23/2. ExPW23/1. ExPW21/1.

30

iv) Additional sheets

ExPW21/2 to ExPW21/5.

b) i)

For 8th October 1989. Advisor's copy of Interview sheet. ExPW21/6.

ii) Member's copy of Interview sheet.

ExPW23/4.

iii) M-IV copy of Interview sheet.

ExPW23/3.

iv) Attendance sheet.

ExPW23/5.

c)

For 11th October 1989.

i)

Advisor's copy of Interview sheet.

ExPW23/6.

ii) Member's copy of Interview sheet.

ExPW23/8.

iii) M-IV copy of Interview sheet.

ExPW23/7.

31

d) i)

For 12th October 1989. Advisor's copy of Interview sheet. ExPW21/7.

ii) Member's copy of Interview sheet.

ExPW23/9.

iii) M-IV copy of

ExPW23/10.

iv) Attendance sheet.

ExOW23/11.

29.

According

to PW21 Mahavir Prashad Jain

it was unanimously decided on the first day that the performance of the candidates would be

assessed by the members and by him individually and marks would be allotted out of 50. He

stated that he used to allot marks on the set of interview sheets given to him in pencil. He made clear that in case a candidate whose name was not figuring in the but he original was full scape by the

interview members to

sheet, be

allowed

interviewed,

additional

sheet/s

were being used which were generally half the

32

size.

According to him, he used to sign in the After

end of each leaf of the interview sheet.

seeing ExPW21/1 he identified his signatures on pages 5 to 12 (all the pages in full scape). also identified his writing in pencil He in

columns 6 to 8 on pages 5 to 12 but explained that pages No.1 to 4 (ExPW21/2 to ExPW21/5) were neither bearing his signatures nor the

awards/remarks were in his hand.

According to PW23 who was assisting the Board members at Karnal attendance of the his duty was to mark and for that

candidates

purpose the signatures of the candidates used to be obtained against their respective names and roll numbers. He also who were made could allowed dates clear not by that if on

certain earlier members

candidates dates on but

appear the

Board and

subsequent used to be

their on

names

particulars

written

additional This the

sheets which were not in full scape paper. witness stated that the signatures of

candidates on each page of each full scape paper of ExPW23/2 were taken by him while marking

33

attendance, but additional sheets attached with ExPW23/2 bearing details of candidates having

roll numbers 2438, 3872, 3985, 4465, 10757,1999 and 2731 were not in his hand. that when he handed over He made it clear these roll

ExPW23/1

numbers were not there.

30. the

I have perused the sheet ExPW21/1. On eight full scape sheets which have been

numbered 5 to 12 signatures of PW21 are there at the bottom along with date. In column No.6 he

has mentioned the additional qualifications of the respective candidates. has given the remarks Very In column No.7 he poor, poor, fair,

good and very good.

In this respect he has been

consistent in awarding five out of 50 in case of very poor, 15 out of 50 for poor, 20 out of 50 in case of fair, 25 out of 50 for good and 35 out of 50 for very good. There is no deviation

on any of the sheets.

Against every candidate

he had mentioned the marks scored and the total marks for example 5/50, 15/50 etc. However,

none of the half scape sheets marked as 1 to 4 (ExPW21/3 to ExPW21/5) bears his signatures.

34

While

on

ExPW21/1

and

ExPW21/5

there

are

no

remarks or marks, on ExPW21/3 and ExPW21/4 which are in fact identical containing two names i.e. Bajir Lal

Jagvir Singh Roll Number 5978 and

Roll Number 7604 there are no remarks like poor, very poor etc. The marks are also mentioned as

0+5=5 in case of Jagvir Singh and 0+35 =35 in case of Bajir Lal. It is evident to naked eye that the marks are not in the hand of PW21. the corresponding attached eye Lal that are attendance ExPW23/2) names and sheet it In

(additional is clear to of

sheet naked Bajir

with the

particulars

typed

by

using

different

typewriter than what has been used while typing the name and particulars of Jagvir Singh.

Similarly difference appears in additional sheet ExPW21/5. ExPW21/4 separately different However, appear in from as to much the sheets been entire ExPW21/3 typed format and out is sheet

have as

ExPW21/5

and

additional

attached with ExPW23/2. The format of additional sheet containing the names of Jagvir Singh and Bajir Lal attached is with the with members ExPW21/3 copy and

ExPW23/1

identical

35

ExPW21/4. identically ExPW21/4.

Even

the

marks as

on on

this

sheet

are and that

mentioned It is

ExPW21/3 evident

therefore,

initially the name of Bajir Lal was added in the attendance signatures ExPW21/3 sheet were and below Jagvir on and that Singh sheet. and Then sheet

obtained

ExPW21/4

additional

attached with ExPW23/1 were typed out separately and members were shown to have awarded thereon to justify that Bajir Lal took interview and got 35 marks.

31.

In the Advisor's copy (ExPW21/6) PW21 The first eight

has adopted the same pattern. pages are in

full scape while page number 9 of

this sheet is half having only one name Parveen. Right under the remarks against his name PW 21 has signed. In the attendance sheet ExPW23/5

also first eight sheets are in full scape while page number 9 is half having the name, Similar However,

particulars and signatures of Parveen. is the case with regard to ExPW23/3.

in ExPW23/4 on page number 9 the name of Chander Bhan has been added below Parveen and he has

36

been shown to have secured 37 marks.

In fact it

is the entire page Number 9 of ExPW23/4 has been changed as would be evident from the difference in the type writing on this particular

additional sheet as compared to the additional sheets attached with ExPW23/5, ExPW23/3 and

ExPW21/6.

The difference can be easily made out

from the digit 9 used in ExPW23/5, ExPW23/3 and ExPW21/6 viz-a-viz the same digit in the It is

additional sheet attached with ExPW23/4.

therefore, clear that this additional sheet was fabricated later on to show that Chander Bhan came for interview and was awarded 37 marks.

32.

In

the

Advisor's

copy

exPW23/6

again

PW21 has adopted the same pattern.

The first

eight pages are in full scape while page No.9 of this sheet is half having only one name that of Indu Sharma. Right under the remarks against her name there are signatures of PW21. In the

attendance sheet ExPW23/9 also the first eight sheets are in full scape while page No.9 is half having Sharma. the name and particulars of only Indu

Similar is the case so far as ExPW23/7

37

is concerned. Raj Singh has

However in ExPW23/8 the name of been added under Indu Sharma's

name and he has been shown to have secured 55 marks. In fact, it is the entire page number 9

of ExPW23/8 which has been changed as would be evident from the difference in the writing on this particular additional sheet as compared to the additional sheets attached with ExPW23/6,

ExPW23/7 and ExPW23/9.

It is, therefore, clear

that this additional sheet was fabricated later on to justify that Raj Singh appeared for

interview and secured 55 marks.

33. evident

Pattern in the

adopted sheet

by

Advisor

PW21

is

ExPW21/7.

Each

sheet

carries his signatures. be interviewed as per

The last candidate to this sheet is Parveen

Kumar Roll number 14287. In the attendance sheet ExPW23/11 also be the last on Parveen Kumar has been shown to candidate 12.10.1989. to have appeared is the for case

interview

Similar

with regard to ExPW23/10. However, in ExPW23/9 one more additional name and sheet has been of attached Mohinder

wherein

the

particulars

38

Singh have been mentioned. He is shown to have secured 48 marks in interview. It is clear

that this additional sheet has been fabricated later on to show that Mohinder Singh had taken interview and had secured 48 marks.

34.

PW23

has

been

categorical

that

Bajir

Lal, Chander Bhan, Raj Singh and Mohinder Singh had not attended the interviews held on

6.10.1989, 8.10.1989, 11.10.1989 and 12.10.1989 respectively. His statement gets support from

the visual examination of the interview sheets and attendance sheets as discussed above. The fact that Bajir Lal, Chander Bhan, Raj Singh and Mohinder Singh did not come for interviews writs large on the very face of it. Perhaps this is

the reason that none of the accused gave even a faint suggestion to the witness that there was no forgery or that the persons named above had, in fact, attended the interviews. Hissar centre. 1) Material Witnesses:1. 2. 3. PW 24 Mohan Lal. PW33 Mir Singh. PW34 Ram Dhari.

39

2)

Relevant Record. a) For i) 9th October 1989. Attendance Sheet. ExPW24/1. ExPW24/2. ExPW8/4.

ii) Advisor's copy. iii) Member's copy.

b)

For 12th October 1989.

i)

Attendance Sheet.

ExPW24/7. ExPW24/5. ExPW24/4.

ii) Advisor's copy. iii) Member's copy.

35.

PW24 Mohan Lal Sharma has stated that

as decided by Devi Dayal, the assessment of the performance of the candidates was to be

indicated on the interview sheets in pencil by writing A,B and C and not by allotting marks and accordingly Devi Dayal and he interviewed the candidates and allotted the remarks A, B and C on their respective sheets. This witness

explained that at the close of the day he used to sign his set of interview sheet and he would deliver the same to Devi Dayal. He made further

clear that the interview sheets given to him and

40

Devi Dayal used to be identical in the sense that one used to be the original and the other carbon of the same. He testified that ExPW24/2

was the interview sheet on which he gave remarks in pencil by tick marking against the names of the candidates A, at B the and and end by C. of making He the assessment identified last sheet in his and

alphabet signatures

stated that Shamsher Singh having Roll Number 21853 was not interviewed by him. According to

him, the name of said Shamsher Singh had been added subsequently in the attendance sheet

ExPW24/1 and the member's copy Ex.PW-8/4 at page No.5 below the name of Sanjiv Kumar.

Similarly,

PW-24

identified

his

signatures on last page of Ex.PW-24/5 as well as on both the additional sheets attached

therewith. He stated that on first additional sheet the name of Ajay Pal has been added

subsequently while second additional sheet the name of Harbhajan Singh has been added

subsequently.

According to him, remarks against

their names were not in their hands as neither

41

of them had appeared for interviews.

He further

explained that he had assessed the candidates by giving sheets remarks the A,B and C but been in additional to be

assessment

has

shown

numerical.

Mir Singh PW33 who was assisting the Board Members at Hissar has stated that although his duty was to serve tea and to arrange queue of the candidates to be sent in for interviews, he also used to mark the presence of the

candidates on the direction of the members of the Board in case the concerned Assistant was not present there at that particular time. He

made clear that he had marked the presence of candidates having Roll Numbers 20597, 20267 and 20629; that the marks in the encircled portions A,B &C showing those candidates to be from

ESM/SC categories were in his hand and he had marked P against these three roll numbers.

According to him, he had not marked 'P' on the left side of the Roll Number 21853 below Roll Number 21850 that on sheet No.5 of ExPW24/1. been made He in

remarked

this

entry

had

42

different typewriter.

He further explained that

whenever a candidate was sent in the room for interview a tick mark used to be put against his name, but this tick mark is not present against Roll No.21853. PW34 Ram Dhari who was the concerned Assistant helping the members at Hissar stated that he had marked presence of the candidates on ExPW24/1 entry by giving two remarks or three 'P' against which each had

barring

entries

been marked by the Peon. page

He explained that at

number 5 of ExPW24/1 the type of entry

against Roll Number 21853 is different from the type used in other entries. According to him, the remarks 'P' against this entry are not in his hand and there is no tick mark against the mark after sending the further explained

entry which he used to candidates in. This

witness

that on 12.10.1989 he had marked presence of all the candidates except Harbhajan Singh on

ExPW24/7.

According to him this entry appears He further stated

to have been made later on.

that pages No.77 and 78 in ExPW24/4 have been prepared subsequently as there is entry of

43

Harbhajan Singh at page No.77, whereas there is no such entry in the corresponding sheets. highlighted appeared come left from after that on 12.10.1989 the when Ajay who He Pal had had and

for

interview, and

Advisor

Excise

Taxation

Department sheets

closing

the

interview

appending his signatures, but Devi Dayal ordered him(witness) to enter the name and particulars of Ajay Pal in additional sheet and accordingly he made entries and allowed him to go in.

According to this witness the writings in Pencil against the name of Ajay Pal Singh are in his hand while writings on against the sheet name No.2 of of

Harbhajan

Singh

additional

ExPW24/5 are not in his handwriting. The witness pointed out further that Suman Dhaiya, Mahavir Singh and Jagat but Pal had not have appeared been added for at

interview

their

names

Page No. 78 of ExPW24/1 subsequently.

36.

have

studied

the

attendance

sheet

(ExPW24/7).

There is only one additional sheet

attached thereto. On the other hand, there are two additional sheets attached to the Advisor's

44

copy ExPW24/5. In member's copy ExPW24/4 there is no additional sheet. second additional sheet It is evident that the attached has been to the

sheet ExPW24/7

attendance

removed

purposely and on the first sheet the name of Harbhajan Singh has been added subsequently. In Advisor's copy ExPW24/5 the name of Ajay Pal has been added on first additional sheet. As

explained by PW34 this entry was made by him on the direction of Devi Dayal. The name of

Harbhajan Singh has been added in the end of second additional sheet of ExPW24/5. In the full scape sheets of the advisor's copy the remarks have been given as A,B and C. These remarks are

in column No. 8. In columns Nos. 6 and 7 there are arrows. In column No. 7 remarks proof of BSC proof of ESM etc against some entries have been typed out but in the additional sheets it

appears that after erasing

the award A,B,C in

the last column marks have been awarded as 3, 35, 7---. In column No.7 also marks have been written as 0+3, 0+35, 0+7,----. According to

PW34 by the time Ajay Pal had appeared, Advisor had left and accordingly Ajay Pal was sent in

45

the room, where only Devi Dayal was present. It means having that been there was no chance and of Ajay by Pal the

interviewed

assessed

Advisor.

This is why PW24 has pointedly stated

that the entry of Ajay Pal in first additional sheet was not there when he signed the same. It is evident that the name of Harbhajan Singh has been added later on on second additional sheet of ExPw24/5. his name are This is why the remarks against superimposing the signatures of

PW24.

Had Harbhajan Singh been interviewed and Advisor,

his performance was assessed by the

the latter would not have signed on the marks awarded by him to Harbhajan Singh. Insofar as

the member's copy ExPW24/4 is concerned it is evident changed that pages No. 77 and 78 have been in

subsequently.

The

typewriter

used

preparing these two sheets is different from the one used in preparing the remaining sheets of ExPW24/4 as well as ExPW24/5 and ExPW24/7. A

small example of the difference would be words BA-II and BA-III. The difference is glaring in so far as pages No. 77 and 78 of ExPW24/4 viz-aviz the other sheets are concerned. There are

46

other differences which would be clear to even a lay man. In first of these two sheets the names

of Ajay Pal and Harbhajan Singh were inserted much above the names of Surinder Kumar, Madan Gopal etc. 57 While Ajay Pal was shown Singh to has have been

secured

marks,

Harbhajan

shown to have been awarded 26 marks. At page No. 78 of the member's copy Ex.PW-24/4 there are

seven names i.e. Sukhbir Singh, Seema Khatri, Surindera, Radhey Shyam, Suman Dahiya, Mahabir Singh and Jagat Pal while in the corresponding pages of Ex.PW-24/5 and Ex.PW-24/7 there are

only four names i.e. Sukhbir Singh, Seema Khatri and Bhoop Singh. It is, therefore, evident that at page No.78 of Ex.PW-24/4 while inserting the names Jagat was of Suman Dahiya, Mahabir Singh and

Pal even the name of Bhoop there shown has to Singh secured been

Singh which Suman

originally

omitted.

Dahiya has been marks while are shown

have secured 57 and 32 Jagat and Pal 50-

Mahabir to have

respectively. It is thus clear that Harbhajan Singh, Suman Dahiya, Mahabir Singh and Jagat Pal had not appeared for interview. Ajay Pal had

47

appeared, Advisor. sheet his

but

he

was this

not even was

interviewed in the to

by

the

Despite

Advisor's have been

performance

shown

assessed. This is a clear case of forgery.

Pinjore centre. 1) Material Witnesses:1. PW1 Krishan Kumar. 2. PW3 Lalit

Kumar. 3. 4. 5. PW4 Rajesh Kumar. PW5 Raj Kumar. PW6 Mohammad Yunus. 6. 7. 8. PW7 Naresh Kumar. PW9 Pawan Kumar. PW10 Mahavir Singh. 9. PW11 Om Parkash. Mohinder

10. PW13 Singh.

11. PW15 Om Parkash. 12. PW16 Krishan Yadav.

48

13. PW18 Rajiv Kumar. 14. PW20 Harmohinder LalMigilani. 15. PW25 Ranjit Singh. 16. PW27 Mahavir Singh. 17. PW 28 Bhupinder Pal. 18. PW42 Pawan Kumar. 19. PW43 Minakshi.

20. PW44 M.K. Puri. 21. PW66 Veer Sen. 2) Relevant Record. a) For 3rd October 1989. i) Attendance sheet. ExPW66/1B. ExPW66/1A. ExPW66/1.

ii) Advisor's copy. iii) Member's copy.

b)

For 6th October 1989. i) Attendance sheet. ExP6. ExPW20/1 (also

ii) Advisor's copy.

49

ExPW18/1.) iii) Member's copy. c) For 7th October 1989 i) Advisor's copy ExPW20/2. ExPW8/1. ExD2.

iii) Member's copy.

d)

For i)

12th October 1989. Attendance Sheet. ExPW28/1. ExPW20/3. ExPW8/2. he had assisted

ii) Advisor's copy. iii) Member's copy. According to PW25

Interview Committee at Pinjore on all the days. He states that he had marked 'P' and tick marked the names of the candidates in the attendance sheet (ExP6) while getting their signatures to mark their presence but markings on page No.5 of ExP6 are not in his hand. page has been changed. He claimed that this

According to PW20, it was decided to give marks out of 25 besides which five marks extra were to be given for additional

qualifications like

Post graduation, LLB etc.

He says that he had allotted marks with pencil

50

to

each

and

every i.e.

candidate Anand

interviewed Dangi on

and the

other

members

Singh

first day and, Inderpal Rao on the

subsequent

days also used to write with pencil on their interview sheets and at the close of interview on each date, the interview sheets used to be handed over to the concerned staff members. He

stated that he had signed on the last page of the interview sheet ExPW20/1 as well as on the additional seeing sheet attached of therewith. which After was

page

No.4

ExPW20/1

separately marked as ExPW18/1 the witness said that the interpolation between Roll Nos.9728 and 9761 was made after he had submitted interview sheets and that the marks/remarks mentioned He

against this entry are not in his hand.

categorically stated that Puneet Jain whose name has been inserted by way of interpolation had never appeared for interview on 6.10.1989 or any other day at Pinjore. PW18 Rajiv Kumar states that sometimes in the month of November 1989 he was called by A.P. Jain who showed him the attendance sheet and asked him to add the name of his son Puneet

51

Jain by typing out the attendance sheet again. According to the witness first of all he was asked to match the prints of the typewriter and after getting them matched A.P. Jain asked him

to get that particular typewriter and to type the attendance sheet afresh by adding the name of his son Puneet Jain and then he inserted the name of Puneet Jain between Roll numbers 9728 and 9761 along with his date The typed of birth and

academic that

qualifications. he had

witness the

stated and

initially

name

particulars of Puneet Jain between Roll No. 9720 and 9728, but since Roll number of Puneet Jain was 9749 A.P. Jain asked him to delete the name from the space between 9722 and 9728 and then type the same he did. again between 9728 and 9761 which

According to him when he typed the

name and particulars of Puneet Jain the remarks in columns No. 6,7 and 8 in pencil were already there.

PW1 Krishan Kumar, PW3 Lalit Kumar, PW4 Rajesh Kumar, PW5 Raj Kumar, PW6 Mohammad Yunus, PW7 Naresh Kumar, PW9 Pawan Kumar, PW10 Mahavir

52

Singh,

PW11

Om

Parkash,

PW13

Mohinder

Singh,

PW15 Om Parkash, PW16 Krishan Yadav, PW42 Pawan Kumar, PW43 Minakshi and PW44 M.K. Puri have

stated that they had appeared for interview at Pinjore on 6,10.1989 and had signed the

attendance sheet but the relevant page of the attendance sheet (ExP6) was not the one which they had signed. They categorically stated

their signatures on this sheet have been forged.

Bhupinder Dalbir Singh was

Pal

PW28

has Roll

stated No. 163

that in

allotted

response to his application in the year 1986. However, he again applied in the year 1988 and hence he was allotted Roll No.12747. As per

procedure even if a candidate is allotted two numbers number. he can appear only under one Roll

In fact, Dalbir Singh appeared under

Roll number 12747 but he was given appointment against Roll No. 163.

37.

A perusal of ExPW20/2 (Advisor's copy)

and ExPW8/1 (Member's copy) would make it clear that Dalbir Singh had appeared for interview on

53

7.10.1989

under

Roll

Number

12747.

He

was

awarded 12 out of 25 by Advisor and 04 marks by the member. However in ExPW66/1 which is the

Member's copy for 3.10.1989, the name of Dalbir Singh was added later on at page 8 to show that he had appeared for interview under Roll No.163 on that day and had secured 51 marks. fact that Dalbir on copy Singh had is and not appeared from The for the sheet The been this

interview Advisor's

3.10.1989 ExPW66/1A

evident

attendance

ExPW66/1B wherein his name does not figure. attendance exhibited sheet sheet but to the for 7.10.1989 has has not into to

Court

looked as

just

satisfy

itself

whether

Dalbir Singh had actually appeared on 7.10.1989. The signatures of Dalbir Singh are there against his name under Roll No.12747. evident that Dalbir Singh It is, therefore, would not have

who

been in the select list was the selected and to justify his selection he was shown to have been interviewed under Roll No.163 on 3.10.1989. If

he had appeared on 3.10.1989 under Roll No.163 question arises as to how he was allowed to

appear again on 7.10.1989.

From the statement

54

of PW66 it is evident that the name of Dalbir Singh was added in ExPW66/1 by him at the

instance of A.P. Jain.

The fact that this entry

was made by PW66 is corroborated by the GEQD. A case of forgery is, thus, made out.

38. Advisor's

I have examined attendance sheet ExP6, sheet ExPW20/1 (also exhibited as

ExPW18/1) and the member's copy ExD2. evident ExP6, that the the relevant name of pages of Jain

It is ExD2 and

where

Puneet

appears,

have been changed but since it was not possible to change the relevant the page of of the Advisor's Jain was

copy

ExPW20/1,

name

Puneet

inserted by interpolation between Roll No. 9728 and 9761. It is evident to naked eye that

earlier interpolation had been made between Roll Nos. 9722 and 9728, but then this was erased albeit, visible. PW18 that the traces of erasure are clearly

This duly corroborates the version of he had made interpolation at the

instance of A.P. Jain.

Since the relevant page

of interview sheet has also been changed to show that Puneet Jain had appeared for interview,

55

under

compulsion

the

signatures

of

all

other

candidates who had appeared for interview were also forged as is clear from the statements of those candidates duly supported by the opinion of the Expert. It is interesting to note that

according to PW20 it was decided in the very beginning that marks were to be awarded out of 25 and that 5 additional marks were to be given for higher out qualifications. maintained (ExD2) by some This PW20. of the pattern However was in

through

Advisor's

copy

candidates

have been shown to have secured even more than 30 marks which not was the maximum. by the Perhaps this

aspect

was

noticed

Investigating

Officer. Otherwise it is apparent that initially no candidate was awarded marks in excess of 30 by the members, but later on interpolations were made. Rajinder Kumar Roll No. 7256 was awarded

4 marks, but then by adding 9 after four the marks were changed to 49 . No. 7402 was initially Sissa Singh Roll awarded 3+4 but

thereafter 0 were added after four to convert 4 into 40 and accordingly he was shown to have secured 43 marks. In column No.8 also after

56

erasing Singh. 4

7,

43

were

mentioned

against

Sissa

Mahabir Singh Roll No. 9660 was awarded but after erasing 4, three was

marks,

mentioned.

Ravi Kumar Roll No. 9761 was awarded

3+4+7 marks, but then 3 was changed into 5 and 7 was changed into 9. Ramesh Chand Roll No. 9809

was awarded 5 marks, but then 5 were added to make it 10. Forgery in columns No. 7 and 8 is Sanjay Dhawan Roll No. 9892

clearly visible.

was awarded 3+5 i.e. 8 marks, but then 3 was converted into 5 and total marks became 10.

Similar is the case of Satish Kumar Roll No. 9909. Likewise forgery is manifest against many Out of them Singh Roll

other entries in the member's copy. the striking ones are Gurcharan

No.10538 and Ashok Kumar Roll No. 1362.

In case

of Gurcharan Singh all the digits appear to have been forged as the tip of pencil used in writing these marks is writing Kumar, other different from the tip used in marks. it is In the case that of he Ashok was

however,

evident

awarded 5 marks but then digit 2 was added after 5 to make it 52. 39. There were four additional sheets

57

attached

with

the

attendance

sheet

ExPW28/1.

These sheets contain the names Parvesh Kumar, Pritivi Singh, Rakesh Gupta, Vinod Kumar, Nafe Ram, Suresh Hement Kumar, Satya Pal, Ashok Pawan Kumar, Kumar,

Kumar,

Karamvir

Yadav,

Rajesh, Joginder Kumar and Rishi Chaudary. The same number of additional sheets and the names appear in the Member's copy ExPW8/2, meaning

thereby, that no other candidate was interviewed on 12.10.1989 at Pinjore. copy ExPW8/2 there are However in Member's five more additional

sheets.

In the first sheet the names of Naresh

Kumar, Yashpal and Om Parkash appear (this page has also been exhibited as ExPW8/3). This paper

appears to have been prepared in a hurry as the complete particulars are not mentioned. Even

the date of interview and the centre are not mentioned. sheets Then there are four more additional have of been inserted among On the the

which

additional

sheets

ExPW8/2

itself.

first sheet (page 87) the name of Shakti Singh, Roll (page No. 88) 6600/the appears. names of On Ram the second Mor sheet Roll

Kumar

No.17859, Narinder Singh Roll No. 18541, Suman

58

Shiv

Rana

Roll

No.18851 The

and

Ram sheet

Singh (page

Roll 89)

No.23101

appear.

third

contains the names of Ashok Kumar Roll No.1599 and Suresh Chand Roll No. 14608 and the last sheet (page 90) has Anirudh Kumar Roll No.24838. Strange aspect about these four sheets (pages 87 to 90)inserted in ExPW8/2 is that in all of them there There is is a cutting in in the date on the under top. the

cutting

the

date

even

signatures of Board Members.

It appears that

initially the date was mentioned as 12.10.1989, but later it was changed on 19.10.1989. The

centre was also initially mentioned as Pinjore, but then changed to Manimajra Board Office. The

reason as to why this was done and why these sheets were inserted in ExPW8/2 is not clear but it is evident that Ram Kumar Roll No.17859 who had received interview call had not appeared on 12.10.1989 at Pinjore. His signatures are not there on the attendance sheet. There is no tick

mark or mark of his presence against his name. Rather he has been marked in the attendance copy sheet. 'A' meaning absent, Even Ram as per was the not

Advisor's

(ExPW20/3)

Kumar

59

interviewed.

But to show that he was actually

interviewed his name was inserted in page number 88 of ExPW8/2.

40.

ExPW24/8 to ExPW24/11 are the Advisor's

copies of the interview sheet for 19.10.1989 at Board Office Manimajra. Singh, Ram Kumar, It is clear that Shakti Singh, Suman Shiv

Narinder

Rana and Ram Singh were not interviewed in the Board Office on 19.10.1989. The persons who

were interviewed were Raj Kumar, Banarsi Dass, Devinder Singh, Kehar Singh, Dilawar Singh, Brij Mohan, Ramesh Chauhan, Anirudh Kumar, Ashok

Kumar, Suresh Chand and Balwan Singh.

41. to

A perusal of Advisor's copies ExPW24/8 ExPW24/11 had would assessed make the it clear that of the the

Advisor

performance

candidates by giving marks A,B and C but then these were erased later on. put on ExPW24/8 on after While no marks were marks were

erasures, and

forged

ExPW24/9,

ExPW24/10

ExPW24/11.

The traces of erasures are clearly visible under the digits 7 and 10 on ExPW24/10 and under digit

60

6 on ExPW24/11.

It is evident to naked eye that

Anirudh, Ashok, Suresh Chand and Balwan Singh were awarded 'C' by the Advisor, but then 'C'

was erased and they were shown to have secured 7,7,10 and 6 respectively. Ram Kumar, Narinder Singh Needless to say that and Ram Singh were

never interviewed, but they were shown to have secured 6,5 and 52 respectively. The name of

Suman Shiv Rana was also mentioned at page 88 of ExPW8/2 along with them but no marks were shown against her. It is not clear as to why her name was added, but no marks were shown to have been awarded to her.

42. The already been

Board Head Office at Manimajra. documents and the evidence has

discussed above while discussing

Pinjore centre.

43.

Now comes the document ExPW17/2 which

is purported to be a resolution passed by the Board showing that answer books of the written exams held for recruitment were to the posts on of 27th

Taxation

Inspectors

destroyed

61

December,1989

instant.

As

per

the

prosecution

this resolution was fabricated. PW28 has stated that after the challenged in the Hon'ble High

In this context selections were Court and the

Board was required to produce the record, A.P. Jain, in the presence of Bachna Ram and Devi Dayal, handed over to him a noting sheet having signatures of only Shri A.S. Dangi at the bottom and, asked him to type out resolution that the record has been destroyed. According to him, he

typed out the resolution ExPW17/2 as dictated by A.P. Jain directly on typewriter. 44. The Prosecution has tried to prove

through Government Expert of Questioned Documents (for short GEQD) that Shri AS Dangi's signatures too were forged. However, it has erred in not He was the best

examining A.S. Dangi himself.

person to prove that the signatures on Ex.PW-17/2 were not affixed by him. It is quiet strange

that the document was not even shown to Shri AS Dangi for his comments. Rather, it was

straightaway sent to GEQD for his opinion along with what are purported to be the

specimen/standard signatures of Shri A.S. Dangi.

62

The

omission

may

be

unintentional

or

even

deliberate.

However, the fact remains that the

proof of authorship of a document/signatures is proof of a fact like any other fact and as held in Mubarak Ali Ahmad Versus State of Bombay AIR 1957 SC 657, the evidence relating thereto may be direct or circumstantial. It may consist of

direct evidence of a person who saw the document being written/signed. It may be the proof of the

handwriting of the contents or the signatures by one of the modes provided in Sections 45 & 47 of the Indian Evidence Act. It may also be proved

by internal evidence afforded by the contents of the documents and other external evidence.

45.

PW-46

has

categorically

stated

that

specimen signatures of Shri AS Dangi were taken by DSP, CBI on Ex.PW-46/5 to Ex.PW-46/8 in his presence. PW-72 Shri S.L. Gupta has stated that

he had taken the specimen signatures of Shri AS Dangi in the presence of PW-46. While a

suggestion was given to

PW-46 that he did not

know Shri AS Dangi personally, no such suggestion was given to PW-72 that the person whose

63

specimen signatures he obtained was not AS Dangi. Therefore, PW-72 cannot be faulted when he says that he took the specimen signatures of Shri AS Dangi in the presence of independent witness.

Hence, there is no doubt about the authorship of the specimen signatures S-270, S-271, S-272 and S-273 on Ex.PW-46/5 to Ex.PW-46/8. these, PW-72 had also taken Apart from specimen

signatures/initials of Shri A.S. Dangi on Ex.PW72/104 to Ex.PW-72/107. These specimen signatures along with the questioned signatures were sent to the expert PW-71 who has given categorical

opinion that author of the specimen signatures and the questioned signatures marked as Q-859 on

Ex.PW-17/2 is not the same meaning thereby that the signatures of Shri A.S. Dangi on Ex.PW-17/2 are forged.

46.

Learned

counsel

for

the

accused

have

argued that a finding cannot be returned solely on the opinion of expert without any

corroboration. Placing reliance on State of Uttar Pradesh Versus Ram Babu Mishra AIR 1980 Supreme Court 791, Karamjit Singh Versus State 2005 (1)

64

RCR Criminal 686, State of Haryana Versus Jagbir Singh 2004 (1) Apex Court Judgments (SC) 57 and Sukhwinder Singh Versus State of Punjab 1994 (5) SCC 152 SC, opinion/report learned counsel contended that the of expert cannot be taken into

consideration because the very taking of specimen signatures by the Investigating Officer during investigation was illegal.

47.

Since this objection has been taken by

the defence counsel not only with regard to the specimen signatures of Shri A.S. Dangi but also regarding the specimen writings/signatures of

several other persons including the accused, to my mind this would be the stage to take it up before anything else.

48.

It is well settled that Section 73 of

the Evidence Act comes in picture only when the Court is seized of the matter, meaning thereby that indulgence of the Court cannot be sought in giving direction to an accused to give specimen signatures/handwritings during investigation. In Sukhwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (Supra) the Hon'ble

65

Apex Court has held in no uncertain terms that if any such direction is given by the Court investigation, the specimen

during

handwriting/signatures so taken cannot be taken into consideration Versus during trial. In State it of was

Haryana

Jagbir

Singh

(Supra),

simply held that a Magistrate cannot direct a person to give specimen signatures while case is under investigation. In the instant case,

however, the Court was never moved with any such request. It himself is the investigating the specimen Officer, who handwriting

obtained

/signatures of the accused. No doubt, Section 73 of the Evidence Act does not authorize a Court to direct an accused / to give during his specimen

handwriting

signatures

investigation.

But there is no bar against the Investigating Officer himself taking the specimen handwriting /signatures of an In accused for the purpose of

investigation.

Bojja Krishna Reddy Vs. State of quashing directing the the

A.P.,2003(1) RCR (Criminal), 844, while order passed by the Magistrate

accused to give specimen signatures/handwriting during investigation it was held that there was

66

no bar for the Investigating Officer obtaining the handwriting of the accused and also taking specimen signatures and sending the same to the expert for the purpose of investigation.

49.

In State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Ram Babu Misra,

(Supra), it was held that the language of Section 73 of the Evidence Act does not enable the

Magistrate to give direction to the accused to give his specimen writing when the case is still under investigation. It was held that the section contemplates pendency of some proceedings before a Court and it does not permit a Court to give a direction to the accused to give specimen writing for anticipated necessity for comparison in a

proceeding which may later be instituted in the Court. This is why the Hon'ble Apex Court

suggested that a suitable legislation may be made on the analogy of Section 5 of the Identification of Prisoners Act to provide for the investiture of Magistrate with the power to issue direction to any person including an accused person to give specimen signatures and writings. No doubt that Section 313 A has been now inserted in the Code

67

of Criminal Procedure to empower the Court to issue such direction during investigation but it does not mean that the power was never available to the Investigating Officer himself. Needless to say that the pronouncements in Karamjit Vs. State (U.T.), State of Haryana Versus Jagbir Singh and

Sukhwinder Singh Versus State of Punjab (Supra) cannot be construed to mean that even the

Investigating Officer is not competent to take the specimen signatures/writings of an accused during investigation.

50.

Since we are discussing the proposition

not only with regard to Shri A.S. Dangi who is not an accused but also regarding those who are

accused in this case, it would be pertinent to take up counsel the argument canvassed by the defence that the taking of specimen

handwritings/signatures of an accused person by the Investigating Officer would be in violation of Article 20 (3) of the Constitution of India.

51.

In order to claim the protection under

Article 20(3) ibid, it must be shown firstly that

68

the

person

is

an

accused

of

an

offence,

secondly he must have been compelled to be a witness against himself.

52.

As to what is meant by the expression

to be a witness. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Bombay Vs. Kathi Kalu Oghad, AIR 1961 SC, 1808, observed thus: To be a witness may be equivalent to furnishing evidence in the sense of making oral or written statements, but not in the larger sense of the

expression so as to include giving of thumb impression or impression of palm or foot or fingers or specimen writing or exposing a part of the body by an accused person for the purpose of

identification. Furnishing evidence in the later sense could not have of been the simple have

within

the

contemplation for they the

Constitution-members reason that though

may

intended to protect an accused person from the hazards of self-incrimination,

69

in the light of the English Law on the subject they could not have intended to put obstacles in the way of efficient and effective investigation into crime and of bringing criminals to justice. The taking of impressions of parts of the body of an accused person very often becomes necessary to help the

investigation of a crime. It is as much necessary to protect an accused person against being compelled to incriminate himself, as to arm the agents of law and the law Courts with legitimate powers to bring offenders to justice. Furthermore, it must be assumed were that aware of the the

Constitution-makers

existing law, for example, Section 73 of Evidence Act or Sections 5 and 6 of the Identification of Prisoners Act (XXXIII of 1920). Section 5 authorizes a

Magistrate to direct any person to allow his measurements or photographs to be taken, if he is satisfied that it is expedient for the purposes of an

70

investigation Code of

or

proceeding

under to do

the so.

Criminal Procedure

Measurements include finger impressions and foot-print impressions. If any such person who is directed by a Magistrate, under Section 5 of the Act, to allow his measurements or photographs to be taken resists or refuses to allow the taking of the measurements or photographs, it has been declared lawful by Section 5 to use all necessary means to secure the taking of the required measurements or photographs. Similarly Section 73 of the Evidence Act authorizes the Court to

permit the taking of finger impression or a specimen handwriting or signature of a person present in the Court, if necessary, for the purpose of

comparison. It is well established that Clause (3) of Article 20 is directed

against self-incrimination by an accused person. conveying Self-incrimination information based must upon mean the

personal knowledge of the person giving

71

the

information the

and

cannot

include of

merely

mechanical

process

producing documents in Court which may throw a light on any of the points in controversy, but which do not contain any statement of the accused based on his personal knowledge. For example, the accused person may be in possession of a document which which is his in his writing or or his

contains

signature

thumb impression. The production of such a document, with a view to comparison of the writing or the signature or the

impression, is not the statement of an accused person, which can be said to be of the nature of a personal testimony. When an accused person is called upon by the Court or any other authority holding an investigation to give his finger

impression or signature or a specimen of his handwriting, he is not giving any testimony of the nature of a personal testimony. The giving of a personal

testimony must depend upon his volition.

72

He can make any kind of statement or may refuse to make any statement. But his finger impression or his handwriting, in spite of efforts at concealing the true nature of it by dissimulation cannot

change their intrinsic character. Thus, the giving of finger impression or of specimen writing or of signatures by an accused person, though it may amount to furnishing evidence in the larger sense, is not included within the expression to be a witness.

53.

The

crux

of

the

matter

is

that

the

powers of the court to direct specimen confused writings/signatures with the powers of

a person to give should the not be

Investigating

Officer to obtain specimen writings/signatures of any person including an accused during

investigation. The Courts and the Investigating Officers operate in the same direction i.e. to

find out truth but both have different domains. Before insertion of Section 313 A in the Code of Criminal Procedure the courts had no power to

73

direct any person to give his specimen signatures or handwriting during investigation. But this

power was always available to the Investigating Officer who could take any step not forbidden by law for the sake of proper investigation. Let us take an example: 'A' lodges complaint with the police that 'B' by forging his writing and

signatures priority

has executed a document.

The first

of the investigating office would be to

find out whether the allegation is true or false. For that purpose, he would like to rule out the possibility of 'A' having written and signed the documents himself. Then his line of action would

be to find out and establish if 'B' had actually forged the writing and signatures of 'A'. that purpose, he For

would collect evidence from all

sources. But, without the help of an expert would he be in a position to reach a conclusion? The

answer would be 'no'. possibility of 'A' document, take the

In order to rule out the having himself signed the

the investigating officer will have to specimen writing/signatures or, the of for

standard writing/signatures, if available, 'A' and then get them compared. Then

74

establishing

that 'B' had forged the writing and

signatures he shall have to ask for the specimen writing and signatures of 'B' also so as to refer them to the expert for his opinion. Only after

this exercise, he will be in a position to decide as to in what manner the report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to be

submitted. Babu Mishra

In State of Uttar Pradesh Versus Ram (Supra) what weighed with the

Hon'ble supreme Court was that Section 73 of the Evidence Act makes no distinction between a Civil Court and a Criminal Court. It posed a question

as to would it be open to a person to seek the assistance of the Civil Court for a direction to some other person to give sample writing under Section 73 of the Evidence Act on the plea that it would help him to decide whether to institute a civil suit in which the question would be

whether certain alleged writings are those of the other person or not. It went on to hold that the

answer would be 'no'. Then it proceeded to hold that no different scales were to be applied if the investigating agency were to seek the

assistance of the court under Section 73 of the

75

Evidence Act on the plea that a case might be instituted before the court where it would be necessary to compare writings. The emphasis was

on pre-institution stage whether it was civil or criminal proceeding. While the powers of the

Court at pre-institution stage were described, it was never held that a party on its own could not get the specimen signatures/writings of another party. Therefore, if the investigating officer asks any person including, an accused, to lend his specimen signatures/writings for the purpose of comparison so as to enable him to reach a definite conclusion accused lends his and the said person or the specimen signatures/writings

without any compulsion, there would be no bar as envisaged in Uttar Pradesh Versus Ram Babu Mishra (Supra) and the subsequent pronouncements based thereupon. Even the provisions of Article 20 (3) of the Constitution of India will not be violated as held in State of Delhi Vs Navjot Sandhu 2005 (11) SCC 600. taken in In that case, specimen signatures custody were held admissible.

police

State of UP Vs Boota Singh AIR 1978 SC 1770 is also relevant in this context.

76

54.

Learned defence counsel would argue that

Section 73 of the Evidence Act does not empower the Court to make comparison of the questioned writings/ signatures with those specimen

writings/signatures which have not been taken in the Court itself on its direction and; specimen signatures/writings taken that the by the

Investigating Officer during investigation become redundant as soon as the charge sheet is filed as their only purpose is to enable the Investigating Officer to form an opinion and not to enable the Court to form opinion.

55.

The

above

contention

looks

attractive

but lacks substance.

A study of Section 73 of

the Evidence Act would make it clear that for making comparison in order to establish the

identity of the author of the writings/signatures it is not necessary that specimen signatures

/writings should have been taken in the Court under its directions. effect. There is no rider to this

Section 73 vests power in the Court to

77

make

comparison

of

the

questioned

signatures

/writings/seal with any signature/writing or seal admitted or proved to its satisfaction to have been written or made by that person. For that

purpose discretion has been given to the Court to direct any person present in the Court to give his specimen writing for enabling it to make

comparison. the Court

However, it is not mandatory that can compare only those

writings/signatures which have been taken in the Court. All those writings/signatures can be

compared which are the satisfaction or made

either admitted or proved to of by the a Court to have been

written

particular

person.

Therefore, when the Investigating Officer takes the specimen signatures/writings and of a person specimen

during

investigations

those

signatures/writings/handwritings have been placed on record and, the Court is satisfied about the identity of the author of the specimen

writings/signatures, it can compare them with the questioned signatures/writings and if it is not

satisfied with the specimen writings/signatures, for any reason, it can even direct any person to

78

lend trial. about

his

specimen

writings/signatures

during

In the instant case there is no doubt the fact of that the specimen Lalit

signatures/writings

Krishan

Kumar,

Kumar, Minakshi, Mohinder Singh, Mahavir Singh, M.K. Puri, Mohd. Younas, Naresh Kumar, Om

Parkash, son of Rattan Singh, Om Parkash Bajaj, son of Diwan Chand, Pawan Kumar, son of Suraj Bhan, Verma, Pawan Kumar, son of Tirlok Chand, Raj Ravi Kumar

Rajesh

Kumar,

Rajesh

Gupta,

Madan, R.K. Chahal, Bhupinder Pal Singh, Mahabir, Veer Sen, Ram Dhari, Attar Singh, Mor Singh and A.S. Dangi were taken. Therefore, the Court does

not feel hesitation in comparing them with the questioned signatures/writings. As to whether of Bachna the Ram, specimen Rao Inder Devi

signatures/writings Pal, Sukhdev

Singh,

Samey

Singh

Kamboj,

Dayal and Nirpal Singh Malik are proved to have been taken during investigation, would be dealt with in later part of the judgment.

56.

Now

the

question

whether

opinion

evidence of handwriting expert can be acted upon

79

without corroboration? In Murari Lal Vs. State of M.P. AIR 1980 (SC) 531, the Hon'ble Supreme Court after considering a catena of precedents on the point held that in cases where the reasons for the opinion of handwriting expert are convincing and there is no reliable evidence showing a doubt, the uncorroborated testimony of the expert may be accepted. The Hon'ble Apex Court observed that no doubt it would be on hazardous the to base of a an

conviction

solely

opinion

handwriting expert. But the hazard in acceptance the opinion of any expert is not because experts, in general, are unreliable witnesses but because all human judgment is fallible and an expert may go wrong because of some defect of observation, some error of premises or honest mistake of

conclusion.

57.

The pronouncement proceeds:An expert deposes and not decides. His duty is to furnish the Judge with the necessary scientific criteria for

testing the accuracy of his conclusion so as to enable the Judge to form his

80

own

independent of

judgment criteria

by to

the the

application

these

facts proved in evidence ------------. By comparing the writing itself the

Court would not assume to itself, the role of an expert. Section 73 of the Evidence Act expressly enables the Court to compare disputed writings with

admitted or proved writings to ascertain whether a writing is that of a person by whom it purports to have been written. Where there are expert opinions, they will aid the Court. Where there is none, the Court will have to seek guidance

from some authoritative text book and the Court's own experience and knowledge. But discharge it must, its plain duty with or without

expert with or without other evidence.

58.

Murari Lal's case (supra) acts as a beacon

light to guide the Courts as to how the opinion evidence of handwriting No doubt expert the is to be of

appreciated.

science

81

identification of handwriting is not as perfect as the science of identification of finger prints is. However, in cases where the Court comes to the conclusion in about dispute the with identity or without of the

handwriting

expert

opinion, no further corroboration is required and the accused can be convicted accordingly.

59.

I have examined the specimen signatures

of Shri AS Dangi on Ex.PW-46/5 to Ex.PW-46/8 and Ex.PW-72/104 and Ex.PW-72/105 and have compared them carefully and minutely signatures on Ex.PW-17/2. with the questioned I find that the only

similarity is in the form when one looks at it in a cursory manner but if the specimen and

questioned signatures

are studied carefully to

find out if there are similarities in the general and individual writing habits, it would be

evident that there is nothing common. It appears that the genuine signatures of Shri AS Dangi were in front of the person who forged them on Ex.PW17/2. The manner in which the signatures have

been copied leaves no doubt that it was backed by a lot of practice but the effort made

82

in

giving

some

shape

to

the

letters

and

the

pictorial appearance is evident. Otherwise, the flow which is evident in the specimen signatures is missing in the questioned signatures. The care free execution of the strokes in the specimen signatures is missing in the questioned signature Q-859. The execution of the signatures Q-859

appears to be laboured. forger has been able to similarity but

In that effort, the give the appearance of

there are marked differences. In

none of the specimen signatures S-270, S-271, S274 and S-275, the shape of the oval around the letters 'A' and 'S' is as smooth as it appears in the questioned signatures Q-859. Similar is the case with regard to the joining of the oval with what purports to be the letter 'D'. While the forger was able to copy the initial portion of the signatures, he failed to execute the

terminal strokes which were bit complicated.

60.

Needless to say that even without taking

the expert opinion into consideration the court is competent to satisfy itself from its own

observations and to arrive at conclusions; but as

83

a matter of prudence and caution the opinion of the expert has been looked into to facilitate the scrutiny of the signatures the court. through the eyes of

Thus, the expert opinion is being

considered not for the proof of the prosecution case but to lend assurance to the court's own observations and to that limited extent the court finds itself in accord with PW-72 the expert Sthe is

that the author of the specimen signatures 270, S-271, S-274 and S-275 Q-859 and on that of

questioned different.

signatures

Ex.PW-17/2

61. Dangi

The fact that the signatures of Shri AS on Ex.PW-17/2 were forged gets

corroboration from the statement of PW-28 that he was given a blank noting sheet with signatures of Shri AS Dangi at the bottom for typing the resolution after the selections were challenged. At that time, Shri AS Dangi was not the

Chairman. He had already resigned.

Therefore,

there was no question of his having signed the resolution even in back date. suggestion was given to PW-28 Not even a faint that he was never

84

asked by Shri AS Dangi to type out the resolution on blank noting sheet. Therefore, there is no reason to doubt the authenticity of the statement of PW-28 who has come out with truth even at the risk of being arrayed as an accused. Had he

wanted to save himself it would have been easy for him to have kept silent as there was nothing on record to prove out the resolution. otherwise that he had typed

62.

Once it is proved that the resolution was typed by PW-28 after the

Ex.PW-17/2

selections were made, there remains no doubt that the resolution was forged to convey to the court that the answer sheets had already been

destroyed.

Otherwise, the court could have asked

for the answer sheets and that would have exposed the fraud.

63.

At this stage, it would be advantageous

to discuss the argument of the defence counsel that there is no question of forgery as PW17 has admitted ExPW17/2. the genuineness of the resolution

To my mind the statement of PW17 is

85

being misread and misquoted.

He simply stated

that ExPW17/2 was bearing the signatures of A.S. Dangi, Sukhdev Singh, Samey Singh, Devi Dayal and Nirpal Malik whose signatures he could identify having writing worked and with him on and having seen them

signing

official

documents.

Therefore, he simply identified the signatures of these persons on ExPW17/2. as the statement on that This cannot be taken was actually as Dangi the on

resolution

passed

27.12.1989. of signatures

Insofar of A.S.

identification

ExPW17/2 is concerned, the judgment of PW17 is not convincing particularly when the signatures were forged in such a manner that it was not easy to find it out.

64.

As discussed above, a stage came during

trial when A.P. Jain, in order to wash his hands off the entire controversy, sought to shift the focus from him. In that effort he got the

affidavits ExDX/1, ExDX/2 and ExDX/3, submitted by Devi Dayal, Samey Singh and Bachna Ram

respectively in the Hon'ble Supreme Court, placed on record to prove that the answer sheets were

86

actually genuinely

destroyed passed.

and

the

resolution

was

Accused Devi Dayal, Samey

Singh and Bachna Ram, when examined as DW1, DW2 and DW3 respectively, however, stated in unison that they had nothing to do with the affidavits. While admitting their signatures on the

affidavits they explained that in connection with writ that had been filed challenging the

selections of Inspectors Sales Tax, they received message to meet Shri K.C. Bajaj, Standing Counsel for Govt. of Haryana in Room No. 105, Haryana Bhawan; that when they went there A.P. Jain was also present who alone went to the room of Shri K.C. Bajaj and came back with a bunch of papers telling them to sign those papers as the same were to be handed over to Shri K.C. Bajaj

immediately who was getting annoyed.

According

to the accused Devi Dayal, Samey Singh and Bachna Ram they were not given time to go through the contents of the papers and A.P. Jain got their signatures, therefore, they do not know what

happened on those papers or whether those were in the form of were affidavits filed in and the whether Hon'ble those Supreme

affidavits

87

Court.

65.

What A.P. Jain succeeded in the end was

in shifting the focus from him to the co-accused Devi Dayal, Samey Singh and Bachna Ram for a while. of They turned tables on him by accusing him their signatures not on blank that papers.

getting

However,

this

would

prove

resolution

ExPW17/2 was actually passed or that it was a genuine document. Had it been genuine there

would have been no occasion

or the reason for

Devi Dayal, Samey Singh and Bachna Ram to deny having submitted affidavits. As it appears the

signatures of A.S. Dangi were got forged on blank noting sheet. the resolution Then PW-28 was asked to type out as dictated Singh, by A.P. Ram, Jain. Samey

Thereafter,

Sukhdev

Bachna

Singh and Nirpal Malik signed that document.

66. Sukhdev

The prosecution has arraigned A.P. Jain, Singh, Bachna Ram and Samey Singh as

accused, but for the reasons known best to the Investigating been left out. Officer, Nirpal Singh Malik has

However, that will not mitigate

88

the guilt of Sukhdev Singh, Bachna Ram and Samey Singh in putting their signatures on the forged resolution in back date. 66-A. Another document which as per

prosecution was forged is ExPW22/28 which shows the marks secured by the candidates in written viva voce in total. pages. This list comprises 166

To prove that this list was fabricated

much after the declaration of the final result, the prosecution has examined PW 28, PW36 and

PW66.

67.

PW 36 has stated that after declaration

of the result A.P. Jain had handed over a list to him, Suresh Vasisht, Bhupinder Singh and Jai

Kumar. He could not recollect the other officials who were also involved. According to him there At some There were

were certain cuttings in that list. places marks had been encircled.

erasings at some places. A.P. Jain asked them to prepare fair copy which they did. The copy so

prepared, according to him, is ExPW22/28.

68.

According to PW28 the list ExPW22/28 was

89

prepared

much

after

the

declaration

of

final

result by him and other daily wagers namely Veer Sen, Mahabir Parshad and Madan on the directions of A.P. Jain and Bachna Ram as both of them were monetaring the entire purpose.

69.

PW66

Veer

Sen

stated

that

after

declaration of final result, he along with other colleagues According to prepared him, award A.P. Jain list used ExPW22/28. to supply

material to Mor Singh the then Assistant on the basis of which they used to prepare the award list. He explained that out of total 166 pages about 40-50 pages while the rest

he had typed

were prepared by the others.

70.

Learned defence counsel would argue that

the statements of Pws Mohar Singh, Veer Sen and Bhupinder Pal Singh, at the most, prove that they committed forgery and thus they were the

principal offenders but none of them has been arrayed as an accused. Learned counsel contended

that the plea taken by these witnesses that they had committed forgery at the behest of A.P. Jain

90

under threat to their daily waged service is of no value to enable them to claim immunity as of instant death of In

there was no apprehension these witnesses

when they committed forgery.

this context the attention of the Court was drawn to Section 94 of Indian Penal Code which

stipulates that nothing is an offence

which is

done by a person who is compelled to do it by threats, which, at the time of doing it,

reasonably cause apprehension that instant death to the person will otherwise be the consequence. Learned counsel contended that none of the of

witnesses has stated that there was fear

instant death, therefore, the protection is not available to them. To buttress this contention

reliance was placed upon Mirza Zahid Vs. Emperor A.I.R. 1938 Alllahabad 91, Umadasi Dasi Vs.

Emperor A.I.R. 1924 Calcutta 1031 and Dasaiswani Reddiar and another A.I.R. (38) 1951 Madrass 894. Learned defence counsel own admission of PW28, argued that as per their PW 36 and PW66 were

accomplices. accomplices

Law provides for making use of such and specific procedure under

Sections 306 and 307 Cr.P.C. has been laid down

91

but, instead of adopting and adhering to that procedure Investigating Officer himself decided the matter granting them pardon which he was not authorized. In support of this contention,

reliance was placed upon Shanker Vs. State of Madhya Pardesh 1997 Criminal Law General 3876. Hence learned counsel urged that in view of the settled legal position these witnesses cannot

claim immunity and

they need to be ordered for

fresh trial in exercise of the powers vested in the Court under Section 319 of Code of Criminal Procedure in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shashi Kant Singh Vs. Jarkeshwar Singh A.I.R. 2002 S.C. 2031.

71.

The Court deems proper to take up these

arguments not only qua Pws Veer Sen, Mohar Singh and Bhupinder Pal Singh, but also with regard to Pws Roshan Lal, Rajiv Kumar, Mahavir and Mir

Singh as they too have claimed that they forged certain entries/signatures at the instance of

A.P. Jain under threat to their service.

72.

There can be no dispute that the defence

92

under

Section

94

of

Indian

Penal

Code

is

available only when the offence except the one punishable with death is committed under fear of instant death. In Dasaiswani Reddiar's case

(Supra) the accused was a clerk in Society. He was put to trial for falsification on accounts. He came up with the plea that he did so under the President's order. The Hon'ble High Court of

Madras held that law allows fear as a reason for acquittal only if there is fear of instant death. In Mirza Zahid's case (Supra) the accused under

threat of being shot was directed to take away body of murdered person to a place where it was not likely to be recovered. The body was

disposed of by the accused even after the danger of instant death stood removed. It was held that

defence under Section 94 of Indian Penal code was not available.

73.

On first blush it would appear as if the are applicable on the facts in

pronouncements

hand on all fours. to be ascertained

However, first of all it has whether the aforementioned

witnesses can be termed as accomplices stricto-

93

senso. An accomplice is a person who participates in the commission of an offence. To be labelled

a particeps to have

criminis, a person should be proved an offence in or willingly such an

committed another

assisted offence.

person

committing

In both the cases, he should be proved

to be having guilty mind.

74.

Section 463 of Indian Penal Code defines

forgery as under:Whoever makes any false document or

part of a document with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or or to support contract, into or any with

express

implied

intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery.

75. defines

Section

464

of

Indian

Penal

Code

making a false document as under:Firstmakes, Who dishonestly or fraudulently signs, seals or executes a

document or part of a document, or makes any mark denoting the execution of a

94

document, with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of a or of document executed a person was by by made, or whom signed, by or the by

sealed, authority

whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed or executed, or at a time at which he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed or executed; or Secondly-Who, without lawful authority, dishonestly cancellation or or fraudulently, otherwise, alters by a

document in any material part thereof, after either it by has been made or by or executed other

himself

any

person, whether such person be living or dead at the time of such alteration; or Thirdly- Who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal execute or alter a document, knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot, or that by

reason of deception practised upon him, he does not know the contents of the

95

document alteration. 76. the word Section

or

the

nature

of

the

24 of Indian Penal Code defines while Section the are 25 of word being

'dishonestly', Penal Code The

Indian

defines provisions

'fraudulently'.

reproduced here-in-under:Dishonestly Whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person, is said to do that thing dishonestly. Fraudulently A person is said to do a thing

fraudulently if he does that thing with intent to defraud but not otherwise.

77.

Forgery means preparing false documents

with intent to cause damage to any person or Public in general or to obtain material gain for oneself or to commit fraud. Whether such an

intention was present in the minds of PW8, PW18, PW27, PW28, PW36 and PW66 is a question of facts. All of them have been unanimous that A.P. Jain

96

asked them to make additions/alterations or to affix signatures much of third the persons on of some final

documents result.

after

declaration

PW8 Roshan Lal has explained that

he

just made the entries in the interview sheet as directed by A.P. Jain with a view to follow the

direction without knowing or realizing that the same were wrong and that he came to know in the year 1992 when the matter was being investigated by the CBI that the entries were wrong.

PW18 inserted attendance the

Rajiv name and

Kumar of

has Puneet

stated Jain sheet

that in on

he the

sheet

interview

being

told by A.P. Jain and; that when he typed the name and particulars of said Puneet Jain, the

remarks in column Nos. 6 to 8 in pencil were already there against the candidates. From his

statement in cross-examination it appears that he knew that what he was doing, he was not supposed to. But, from this no inference of dishonest or fraudulent intention can be drawn. derive any personal advantage He was not to by making

97

interpolation.

The

only

person

to

gain

was

Puneet Jain and his father A.P. Jain. PW27 Mahavir Singh has given the

background in which he was called by A.P. Jain to his room. A case was filed in the Hon'ble High Reply was to Jain gave him

Court challenging the selections. be filed by S.S.S Board. A.P.

attendance sheet and interview sheet and asked him to affix signatures of Rao Inder Pal Singh, member S.S.S. Board on interview sheet and of some candidates on the attendance sheet.

According to him, he was also asked to pencil, the

write, in

remarks against the names of certain

candidates in interview sheet and was also asked to prepare additional sheet. clear that before he The witness made affixed the

actually

signatures of Rao Inder Pal Singh and candidates he was shown the original sheets containing

signatures of candidates and was asked to affix signatures of Rao Inder Pal Singh. that before complying with his He claims he

direction

objected to but, A.P. Jain insisted and rather threatened that if he did not oblige he would be shunted out. In cross-examination he admitted

98

that he knew that what A.P. Jain was directing him to do was wrong but he was left with no option except the obey A.P. Jain as he assured that record was to be tendered in the Hon'ble High Court and he will be responsible for

everything.

According to the witness A.P. Jain

threatened him that if he did not oblige, he would be thrown out of service and since he was a daily wager, to him the threat was not imaginary.

It has already discussed above that PW28 Bhupinder Pal Singh was asked to type out

resolution on blank noting sheet with signatures of A.S. Dangi on bottom. He explains that

initially he refused to obey the command of A.P. Jain, but then the latter insisted and convinced him that entire responsibility would be that of him. This witness went on to point out various

other documents viz. interview sheet/attendance sheet in which interpolations/additions were made by him at the instance of A.P. Jain. When

questioned by the Court as to whether

realized

that what he was being asked to do so was not legal, he replied that initially he and his

99

colleagues did not suspect as they were told that the record was to be brought in conformity with the result declared so as to be produced in the Hon'ble High Court, but when they realized that things were crossing than limits what was and there were to was of this

something appear, he

more

being then

made he out in

started that The he

resisting would be

but

threatened service.

thrown that

witness

explained

manner he was taken in and manipulated.

According to PW36 the list ExPW22/28 was prepared by him and others on the basis of

another list handed over to them.

In the list

there were some cuttings erasings etc. and the impression given to them was that a fair copy was to be prepared so that it can be handy in Court matter as, by that time, had writ petitions The

challenging

selections

been

filed.

witness explained that at that particular time he did not realize that there was malpractice as he did what was asked for but, later when the CBI took over investigation he realized that committed a mistake. he had

100

PW66 has explained that when A.P. Jain asked him to put signatures of examiner on the sheets prepared under his direction and he

refused, he was told that these were the official records which were to be produced in the Court. According to him, when he still remained unmoved he was threatened with termination of services as he was only a daily wager. claim Singh, that Rao he forged Pal the Consequently, signatures and of a Same under

Inder

Singh

others

compulsion and threat.

78.

The

crux

of

the

statements

of

the

officials who were made to forge the record is that they were threatened and manipulated. From

this, it cannot be inferred that any of them had any dishonest or fraudulent intention to prepare the false documents. knowledge prepared. that false At the most they had the documents were being

It has to be borne in mind that mere

knowledge that a false document is being prepared is not forgery within the means of Sections 463 and 464 of Indian Penal Code. Therefore if PWs

101

Roshan

Lal,

Rajiv

Kumar,

Mahavir

Singh,

Mohar

Singh and Veer Sein prepared false documents at the instance of A.P. Jain without any mal-

intention, they cannot be termed as accomplices. The question as to whether threat given to them was not sufficient to bring their case within the purview of Section 94 of IPC once it is proved For that this becomes redundant witnesses it was were not

these

manipulated.

reason,

necessary for the Investigating Officer to first arraign these witnesses as accused and then take recourse of Sections 306 and 307 of Code of

Criminal Procedure.

The pronouncements relied

upon by defence counsel are thus, not applicable. 79. PWs Roshan Lal, Rajiv Kumar, Mahavir

Singh, Bhupinder Pal Singh, Mohar Singh and Veer Sein may have committed a mistake in toeing the line of A.P. Jain on certain instances or in certain instances of that of Bachna Ram and Devi Dayal also as claimed by PW-28 Bhupinder Pal

Singh but, there is nothing on record to prove that they did it for personal gain or with intent to cause injury to any particular person or

public.

They may have become victims.

They may

102

have even allowed themselves to become victims but to attribute mala fide to them would not be fair in the given circumstances.

80.

Even if, for a pause, it is admitted

that PWs Roshan Lal, Rajiv Kumar, Mahavir Singh, Bhupinder Pal Singh, Mohar Singh and Veer Sein were accomplices, the fact remains that it is either for the prosecution to ask for their

summoning as accused or for the court to take suo-motu action. The accused facing trial have They

no such right in the given circumstances. could have sought the summoning of

additional As

accused only by proving their own innocence. the facts and circumstances proved on

record

would reveal the proving its

prosecution has succeeded in case against fact that the accused were

independently.

The

documents

forged/tampered with is evident on the face of record. The statements of PWs Roshan Lal, Rajiv

Kumar, Mahavir Singh, Bhupinder Pal Singh, Mohar Singh and Veer Sein have been recorded just for

corroboration that the record were tampered with. Even if they had not been examined, the factum of

103

forgery have

was

evident. and

Now

that

these

witnesses

appeared

assisted

the

investigating

agency and the court in finding out truth, it would be too harsh to them if the Court at this stage orders their prosecution. The summoning of

these witnesses as additional accused would have been necessary only if the offences against the accused persons before the Court were not capable of being proved independently or if there was some material The to fact indicate remains their that (accused's) there is no

innocence.

evidence to prove that accused who are facing trial are innocent or that the persons who have been cited as witnesses were the real culprits. The witnesses PWs Roshan Lal, Rajiv Kumar,

Mahavir Singh, Bhupinder Pal Singh, Mohar Singh and Veer Sein cannot be termed as real forgers. They were simply the tools. Through them forgery

was committed. Law punishes those who use tools. There is no law to punish the tools. Therefore, the court does not find any justification to

invoke its power under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to summon these witnesses as accused.

104

81. out from

That A.P. Jain was the king pin is borne the statements of all the officials

witnesses. in

While he may have indirect interest some candidates, he had direct

selecting

interest in the selection of his son i.e. accused Puneet Jain. He being the Secretary was in

position to manipulate the record.

82.

Learned counsel for accused A.P. Jain

would argue that there is no evidence to prove that the record alleged to have been tampered was available with A.P. Jain, therefore, the question of tampering of the same by him does not arise. In this context, learned counsel drew attention of the court to the statement of PW22 R.P.

Sukhija who admitted having made statement to the CBI to the effect that he did not hand over the record pertaining to the Taxation Inspectors

Excise held in the year 1988-89 to A.P. Jain and that the record viz key books, award list, result of written examinations was in the custody of A.S. Dangi, the then Chairman,who did not hand it

105

over to him. that as per

Learned counsel pointed out further ExPW14/34 when PW22 R.P. Sukhija

handed over charge to A.P. Jain on 17.10.1989, the result of written exams (detail marks and key) were not has handed made over to but, this subsequently effect in

somebody

entry

ExPW14/34 by way of interpolation just to make out case against accused A.P. Jain.

83. extent

Learned defence counsel is right to the that there is some interpolation in

ExPW14/34.

As admitted by PW22 when this list

was prepared, it had only six items i.e. result sheet and the interview sheets but, item No. 7 concerning result of written exams (detail marks and key) had been interpolated. However, in the

opinion of the Court this, by itself, will not prove that the record was not available with A.P. Jain. In this context the noting sheet ExPW14/40 is relevant. The first noting is dated 1.2.1990 It reads as under:-

by Shri A.P. Jain.

List below is the list of the categories of posts in which the Board has

interviewed the candidates or taken the

106

test or both, but their selections has not been finalized. Shri Anand Singh Dangi

has since resigned from the Chairmanship of the Board. is As to the be 'No issued Objection to the

Certificate'

Government, CA & P.A. To the Chairman may kindly relevant certify papers as to whether all the etc.

(Interview

sheets)

connected with interviews and the written examinations ( i.e. Marks lists, key

result & award list) are available with them and if not which cases it is so.

84.

The

list In

referred response,

to

in

the

note

is

ExPW14/44.

the

Confidential

Assistant gave the following note. (Note is in Hindi). The Court has made an effort to reproduce it in English as under:In respect of the above orders of the Secretary, the Office is to submit that D sheets of interviews conducted by the Board for the posts mentioned at Serial Nos. 1 to 26 in the attached list are on record except Serial No. 25 (Serial

107

Nos. 4 to 8 are with Secretary). In so far as Serial No.22 regarding police

Inspectors is concerned, the key is not in record. Only sheet the award of list, written

attendance

examinations and answer sheets are on record. regarding In respect of D sheet at

light

vehicle

drivers

serial No.25

the office is to clarify

that only one D sheet of the committee comprising Devi Dayal, Sukhdev Singh

which conducted interviews at Hissar is available. examination ASI is The and record interviews The concerning concerning Presiding committee

available. of the

Officers

remaining

were not there. may be gathered

Therefore, the record from the remaining

members.

85.

This was followed by the following note

by A.P. Jain on 1.2.1990 itself. Again the same is being reproduced in English translation: I have come to know that the key of

108

the exams of Police Inspectors was with SR-IV. Confirm from him. Nasib Singh be also called from his residence.

86.

In response the confidential Assistant

gave the following note which is reproduced in English translation:In respect of the orders on pre-page is submitted Inspectors which is that was key with concerning the then Police Chairman

being

enclosed

hereunder.

Secretary may peruse.

87. following

On

this on

basis

A.P.

Jain (by

gave mistake

the he

note

2.2.1990

mentioned the date as 2.1.1990 which appears to be a clerical error). The note is being

reproduced in translated version as under:The entire record concerning key books and award lists of examinations,

interviews is available in the office. SR-IV to find out if there are any dues towards store and other subjects so that the requisite NOC could be issued.

109

88.

Learned defence counsel has argued that

the last noting is with regard to the Inspectors of Police only, therefore, it cannot be said that the record concerning Taxation Inspectors was

also available in the office as on 2.2.1990.

89.

A perusal of notings, which have been

reproduced here-in-above, would falsify the stand taken by the accused. The first query put by

A.P. Jain was as to whether all the relevant papers i.e. interview sheets etc. connected with interviews and marks lists, key result and award list connected with written exams of the posts mentioned in the list ExPW14/44 were available or not. not It is evident that if these documents were available in the office, No Objection

Certificate could not be issued to A.S. Dangi. In the list ExPW14/44 the post of Taxation

Inspectors was at serial No.1.

In response to

the query, the Confidential Assistant reported that the entire record except concerning serial No. 22 and 25, (Inspectors of Police and LTV) was available in the record. drivers

Then A.P. Jain

110

while

drawing

pointed

attention

to

the

record

concerning serial No.22 asked whether that record was not with SR-IV. In response the Confidential

Assistant recorded that the key concerning exams for Police Inspectors was with the then Chairman from whom it had been obtained. It is only

thereafter that A.P. Jain recorded the final note that the entire record concerning interviews,

keys and award lists was available in the office. This note was not confined to the posts of

Inspectors of Police only.

Rather, this was the

culmination of the first note whereby the office had been asked to ensure whether the entire

record concerning the exams/interviews held for various posts including that of Taxation

Inspectors was available or not. In so far as the record concerning Taxation Inspectors is

concerned, it was made clear by the Confidential Assistant in reply to the first note itself that it was available. Therefore, to say that the

record i.e. interview sheets, marks lists, keys and award lists of Taxation Inspectors were not available in the office or were not referred to in the noting sheet ExPW14/40 or; that the same

111

were available with the Chairman A.S. Dangi would not be correct. In face of this overwhelming

documentary evidence the statement of PW22 loses relevance to a limited extent. Even otherwise,

when PW22 says that key books and detail marks were with A.S. Dangi, who did not hand them over to him, he is referring to the stage when he was to hand over charge to A.P. Jain. resigned on 29.1.1990. A.S. Dangi

This was much after the

transfer of PW22 R.P. Sukhija. Therefore, what PW 22 proves is that the relevant record was with the Chairman till 17.10.1989 when he handed over charge to A.P. Jain. From the noting sheet

ExPW14/40, it is proved that while resigning on 29.1.1990, A.S. Dangi did not carry the record with him. This is He left the record in the office. why the report of the Confidential

Assistant in response to the query by A.P. Jain.

90.

The

noting

Sheet

ExPW14/40

is

not

forged document.

The nothings are genuine and

convey the correct picture. These were recorded in due course. Therefore, any oral evidence

contrary thereto would not be admissible.

112

91.

Once it is proved that record i.e. The and interview sheets for the posts in of the

marks list, key, award list concerning Taxation the examinations were

Inspectors

available

office of the Board as on 02.02.1990, the sting in the argument of the defence that the record was not available with AP Jain or; that he was

not in a position to tamper with the same goes. The notings recorded on the sheet Ex.PW-14/40

which have been proved as Ex.PW-38/2 and Ex.PW14/41 also, not only available prove that the record was and, hence, accessible

in the office

to AP Jain being Secretary of the Board but, it also proves that false to information Hon'ble was Supreme

deliberately

furnished

the

Court by mentioning in the affidavits Ex. DX-1 to Ex. DX-3 that along with the answer books, award list had also been destroyed resolution dated 27.12.1989. that resolution of Ex. answer in terms of the It is worth mention concerns only. the This

PW-17/2 books

destruction

resolution may have been fabricated in order to avoid production of answer books in the court

113

but

the

fact

remains

that

for

fabrication

of

record as has been done, the answer books were not required. 92. Even the question of availability or

non-availability

of the record viz award list, the board

key book and mark list with AP Jain or availability of that matter with the

officials is purely academic allegation of the prosecution

as it is not the that key book,

award list and

marks sheet were tampered with.

The case is that result was declared on the basis of a fabricated list containing 166 pages (Ex.PW22/28) and in order to justify that the interview sheets and attendance sheets were tampered with and, manipulated. The final selection list

Ex.PW-28/2 was the off shoot. Therefore, even if the key book, the award list and the mark sheet were not available, it was not going to make any difference as the basic record which was tampered with is available and that is the attendance the fact and mark as late

sheets and interview sheets. However, that the key book, award in the list office

sheet were available as on 02.02.1990

proves

that these

documents

114

were dishonestly and deliberately concealed or destroyed in order to conceal the commission of forgery. Had this record been produced, or made exposed the racket.

available, it would have

93.

Stage now to discuss the role played by AP Jain, as discussed above, was The entire conspiracy revolved

each accused. the king pin.

around him. From the statements

of PW8, PW 18,

PW27 PW-28, PW-36 and PW-66 it is proved that the record was tampered with at the behest of AP Jain. From the statement of PW 28 Bhupinder Pal

Singh it is proved that when the record was being tampered with Bachana Ram and Devi Dayal also

used to be there. Hence, the active participation of Devi Dayal oral and Bachna Ram is proved. of the the witnesses The get

statements from

corroboration

documentary

evidence

inasmuch as the resolution Ex.PW-17/2 which was forged much later bears the genuine signatures of Devi Dayal, Bachana and Ram, Samey Singh Kamboj, They

Sukhdev

Singh

Rao

Inder

Pal

Singh.

consciously signed the fabricated resolution in back date knowing fully well that in fact, no

115

such resolution had been passed during the tenure of Shri AS Dangi, Chairman. To say that there was perfect meeting of minds between them and AP Jain would not be unfair.

94. there which

Apart are are

from

the other

resolution fabricated been

Ex.PW-17/2, documents by the

several proved

to

have

signed

accused Bachana Ram, Devi Dayal,

Samey Singh

Kamboj, Sukhdev Singh and Rao Inder Pal Singh. However, there are certain fabricated documents on which their signatures have been forged by the officials, as discussed above, at the behest of AP Jain.

95.

Let us take up the documents ( other

than ExPW17/2) which are forged but, bear the genuine signatures of Bachana Ram, Devi Dayal,

Samey Singh Kamboj, Sukhdev Singh and Rao Inder Pal Singh:

Bachana Ram (i) His genuine signatures are there on the forged additional sheets

116

attached with Ex.PW- 23/1, wherein the name of Bajir Lal was added. (ii) His genuine signatures are forged on the

additional sheet attached

with Ex.PW-23/4, wherein the name of Chander Bhan was added. (iii) His genuine signatures are the forged additional sheet on

attached with Ex.PW-23/8, wherein the name of Raj Singh was added. (iv) His genuine forged signatures are sheet on the

additional

attached

with Ex.PW-23/9, wherein the name of Mohinder Singh was added.

Samey Singh Kamboj (i) His genuine signatures are forged additional sheet on the attached

with Ex.PW- 23/1, wherein the name of Bajir Lal was added. (ii) His genuine signatures are on the forged with 90) additional sheets 88, attached 89 and

Ex.PW-8/2

(Pages

117

Rao Inder Pal Singh (i) His genuine signatures are on the

forged additional sheets attached with Ex.PW-8/2 at pages 87, 88, 89, 90 and 91. It is pertinent to note here that there are two signatures of Rao Inder Pal Singh page No.91 of Ex.PW-8/2. on

Those have been marked While the one

as Q-1052 and Q-1053 respectively.

at Q-1052 is genuine, Q-1053 is forged. Likewise on all the fill scape sheets of Ex.PW-8/2, there are two signatures of Rao Inder Pal Singh. One

on each of them is genuine while the other is fabricated. It appears that the sheets, on

which there are two signatures of Rao Inder Pal Singh, were supposed to carry the signatures of Samey Singh Kamboj along with Rao Inder Pal

Singh but, while making interpolations this was not noticed and in a haste the signatures of Rao Inder Pal Singh were forged on those sheets

instead of forging the signatures of Samey Singh Kamboj. Sukhdev Singh (i) The genuine signatures of Sukhdev Singh

118

are

on the forged additional sheets with Ex.PW-24/4 at pages

attached 77 and 78.

It is evident that on all the pages of Ex.PW-24/4, the signatures of Sukhdev Singh are in Hindi except at Page No.77 on which the

signatures are in English.

Under none of the

signatures except at Page No.77, the date has been put by Sukhdev Singh. date 12.X is at specifically Page proves No.77 that The fact mentioned which the was that the under the

signatures

fabricated were

subsequently

signatures

affixed in back date.

96.

The very fact that original and genuine of accused Sukhdev Devi Singh Dayal, and Rao Bachna Inder Ram, Pal

signatures Same

Singh,

appear on record which was fabricated goes a long way in proving that they were participants in criminal conspiracy. Their signatures on some

documents may have been forged by the officials of the Board at the behest of A.P. Jain but that, by itself, will not be sufficient to exonerate

119

them.

It

appears as per

that

everything in

was

being to

manipulated

convenience

order

justify the list ExPW22/28.

There is no doubt

that result was prepared under the signatures of Board Members. That the result ExPW22/28 was

prepared and; on the basis thereof selection list ExPW28/2 was prepared proves that everything was in the notice of Sukhdev Singh, Bachna Ram, Same Singh, Devi Dayal and Inder Pal Singh. There is nothing on record to indicate that any of them ever raised any objection against the result and the selection list. Rather there is ample

evidence on record to prove that in order to justify the result these accused actively

connived with A.P. Jain in tampering the record. Not only this, resolution (ExPW17/2) was forged

to hoodwink the Court and on that basis wrong information was deliberately supplied to the

Hon'ble High Court.

Therefore, merely because

the signatures of Bachna Ram are not genuine on all the pages except pages No.1 to 166 of

ExPW22/28 and those of Rao Inder Pal Singh are not genuine on any page except page No.2 it does not mean that they were not conspirators. For

120

the same reason that mere fact that signatures of Bachna Ram, Samey Singh and Devi Dayal are

forged on all but the last page of ExPW28/2 does not prove their innocence. Had they been

innocent they would not have forged resolution ExPW17/2. It is pertinent to mention here that apart from these documents the list ExPW17/3 was also forged to show that Ajay Pal Jaspal, Chet Ram and Ramesh Kumar had qualified the written test on the basis of revaluation. On this list

the signatures of A.S. Dangi and Devi Dayal are forged while those of Inder Pal Singh, Sukhdev Singh, Bachna Ram and Samey Singh Kamboj are

genuine.

It is thus evident that signatures of

one or the other member of the board were being forged with their tacit approval as per

convenience and availability.

97.

Another important aspect which should

not be ignored is that the result of written exams was declared on 15.9.1989. Interviews were over by 19.10.1989. The only thing to be done

for the declaration of the result was compilation of the marks obtained in written and viva-voce.

121

Still the result was not prepared Dangi, the Chairman for about resigned three on

till A.S. 29.1.1990. the Board

Thereafter

months,

remained without any Chairman. Bani Singh Balhara joined on 6.4.1990 itself on which date the

result was declared. Learned counsel for accused have failed to explain as to what was the hurry in declaring the result on 6.4.1990 i.e. the same day when Bani Singh Balhara joined as Chairman. There is no explanation as to why his approval was not sought for the declaration of the result. The manner in which the The things result were hastened was

proves

malpractice.

ExPW22/28

compiled on 6.4.1990. On that basis the selection list ExPW28/2 was prepared and recommendations were sent to the Excise and Taxation Department on the same day.

98. Singh,

As Raj

discussed Singh,

above,

accused

Mohinder Jain,

Mahabir

Singh,

Puneet

Harbhajan Singh, Bajir Lal, Jagat Pal and Ram Singh had not even appeared for interview but they were shown to have been interviewed. Ajay Pal Kanswan did appear for interview but by that

122

time the Advisor had left.

However, he was shown

to have been interviewed by the Advisor also. Dalbir Singh had taken the examination under Roll Number 12747. He appeared for interview under

this Roll Number on 7.10.1989 on which date he was given insignificant marks but, by way of

interpolation he was shown to have appeared for interview under Roll Number 163 on 3.10.1989.

Against this fabricated entry he was shown to have secured 51-1/2 marks so as to justify his selection. The only inference to be drawn is that he would not have got selected with the marks that he had got in interview. No wounder that

he was shown to have been selected under Roll Number 163 under which he had never appeared.

99.

Ramesh

Kumar

had

not

cleared

the

written test. To justify his appearance during interview he was shown to have applied for

revaluation vide application application requisite 538662. the receipt was

ExPW19/1. vide

In this the as

number

which

fee

deposited

was

mentioned

However, this receipt, as deposed by

PW26 Attar Singh Yadav, was issued in the name of

123

Jasbir Singh as is evident from the counterfoil ExPW26/9. In the receipt ExPW26/4 attached with

the application ExPW19/1 the name of Jaspal Singh was mentioned after cutting in the relevant

column. that the

An effort was made to give appearance name was Ramesh Kumar. As per the

procedure, application for revaluation has to be allowed by the Secretary of the Board and, only thereafter the fee can be deposited. However

application ExPW19/1 does not bear the signatures of the Secretary. As deposed by PW26 his

signatures against the relevant column

of Ex.PW-

19/1 are forged. It is therefore, evident that the application ExPW19/1 was fabricated to

justify the selection of Ramesh Kumar.

100. to have

On the record, no application was found been filed by Ramesh Kumar seeking

revaluation. In so far as accused Rakesh Kumar and Surinder Kumar are concerned, they are shown to have appeared As of for interview by PW24, at he Hissar had by on

12.10.1989. assessment

deposed all the

made

candidates

giving

remarks A,B,C. As discussed above the names of

124

Rakesh Kumar and Surinder Kumar were appearing in the additional sheet attached with the Advisor's copy ExPW24/5. In the relevant sheet remarks

given by the Advisor were erased and in their place marks were shown to have been awarded. In

the process Surinder Kumar and Rakesh was shown to have secured 8 each while Ramesh Kumar was shown to have secured 55. a This view forgery to was

evidently

committed

with

justify

selection of Rakesh, Surinder and Ramesh. 101. In order to lend strength to its case

that accused Mohinder Singh, Raj Singh, Mahabir Singh, Puneet Jain, Rakesh Kumar, Harbhajan

Singh, Surinder Kumar, Ramesh Kumar, Bajir Lal, Jagat Pal, Chander Bhan and Ram Singh had not cleared also the written test, the prosecution ExPW22/1 result of has

placed to

reliance PW22, is

upon the on

which, written

according

examination 15.9.1989. 101-A

displayed

the

notice

board

on

It has to be borne in mind that PW22/1

is not the original but a photo copy. Learned defence counsel would argue that this is not

admissible in evidence even if exhibited without

125

objection.

102. photo

It is copy

well settled that exhibition of any objection does not

without

dispense with the formal proof.

As per Section

64 of the Evidence Act documents must be proved by primary evidence except in the cases mentioned in Section 65. Clause ( C) of Section 65 of the the

Act stipulates that secondary evidence of

existence, condition, or contents of a document can be given when the original has been

destroyed or lost, or when the party offering evidence of its contents cannot, for any other reason not arising from his own default or

neglect, produce it in reasonable time.

103.

Section 63 defines as to that Secondary It reads as under:Secondary evidence means and

evidence is. 63.

includes(1)Certified copies given under the

provisions hereinafter contained; (2)Copies made from the original which by in

mechanical

processes

126

themselves ensure the accuracy of the copy, and copies compared with such copies; (3)Copies made from or compared with

the original; (4)counterparts of documents as against the parties who did not execute them. (5)Oral accounts of the contents of a document given by some person who has himself seen it.

104.

Section

65 of the Evidence Act itself what In

explains as to in which particular case type of secondary evidence is admissible. case

of clause ( C), any secondary evidence of It

the contents of the document is admissible.

is thus, clear that when the original has been destroyed or lost or when the parties offering evidence of its contents cannot produce it any type of secondary evidence including Photostat copy or even oral account of the contents is admissible.

105.

In the instant case, the Investigating

127

Officer original

has

categorically of the

stated

that was

the not was

result The

written

exams

available.

fact

that

final

result

declared on 6.4.1990 proves that till then the result of written exams was available in the

Board Office. per forged

Unlike the answer sheets which, as resolution (ExPW17/2), had been

destroyed there is nothing on record to indicate that the original result of written exams was also these drawn destroyed along with the answer sheets. to In be

circumstances is that

only

inference has

original

result

been

deliberately concealed or destroyed to conceal the commission of crime.

106.

From the statement of PW14 Pan Singh

Rawat, it is evident that he was given additional charge of confidential branch in respect of

written exams held for certain posts including the posts of Taxation Inspectors. It is evident that he was to of prepare PW22 the result under the the then

supervision

R.P.

Sukhija,

Secretary of the Board. According to this witness he was asked by PW22 R.P. Sukhija to note down

128

the marks of each candidate in the key book meant for Taxation Inspectors examination after the

receipt of award sheet along with answer books and accordingly, he noted down the marks from the key book in the presence of the Secretary and, the Assistants Krishan Lal and Sher Singh Lamba. The witness explains that list of successful

candidates in the written test was prepared by him on fictitious Roll numbers in the presence of Secretary R.P. Sukhija and then Nasib Singh

Confidential Assistant prepared the

result by

converting fictitious Roll Numbers into original Roll Numbers and, the result sheet so prepared by Nasib Singh was signed by the Secretary and then, as per the procedure, one copy of the result of the written test was displayed on the notice

board.

According to PW-22 R.P. Sukhija result of

written exams was typed by Nasib Singh on the basis of the result prepared and after putting his initials on the typed result he had put it up to him and after comparing the result so

prepared, he had signed the same.

According to

him, when he came to know from the newspapers that Hon'ble Supreme Court had referred the

129

matter to C.B.I. he got photo copy of the result from PW17, the then P.A. to Chairman. PW17 has

stated that a copy of the result of the written exams duly signed by Secretary R.S. Sukhija was received by the Chairman and; that after R.P. Sukhija was transferred, he asked him for a copy of the result and, he (PW17) took a copy from the Chairman and passed on the same to Shri R.P. Sukhija. copy According to him Mark-PA was the same was handed over to him to Shri

which

Sukhija.

When Shri R.P. Sukhija appeared in the

witness box, he while identifying his signatures as well as the initials of Nasib Singh, proved it as ExPW22/1. seized from This is the same copy which was Shri Officer R.P. Sukhija by the memo

Investigating (ExPW72/9).

vide

Seizure

107. written

No doubt that when the result of exams was being exhibited neither the

prosecution sought permission to lead secondary evidence nor the defence raised any objection. However, the question was is as to to move whether a the

prosecution

obliged

separate

130

application for seeking secondary evidence? Section 65 of the Evidence Act, there is

In no

provision

requiring

application

seeking

permission to lead secondary evidence. Secondary evidence can be led by satisfying the conditions laid down in Section 65. In the instant case the

relevant condition was that the original had been destroyed or lost and the prosecution was not in a position to produce it. The moment the

execution, existence and lost of the document was proved on record, no separate permission to lead secondary evidence was required and not only a photo copy was admissible but also oral account of the contents. Even if the prosecution had not

been able to get hold of photo copy, oral account of the contents of such a document de hors photo copy could have been admissible. This case is on

much better footing. The prosecution has not only placed on record photo copy of the document but has also examined PW-14 and PW22 to prove that such a document was actually prepared. 108. It cannot gainsaid that from the

statements of PW14 and PW12 the execution and existence of the original result sheet is proved

131

to the hilt. Even the accused have not denied that the result of written test was prepared. The very fact that the final result was prepared on 6.4.1989 proves that the result of written test was available on that date. Subsequently on

being directed by the Court, A.P. Jain gave an undertaking, vide affidavit ExPW14/42, that he will not destroy the record of selection for the posts of Taxation Inspectors available with the Board. That the affidavit was cleverly drafted

is borne out from the words "available with the Board". Definitely these words were used as a

stratagem without bringing to the notice of the Court as to whether there was any record which was not available with the Board. Finally, as it turned out, the result of written test, the award list and key boook were not in the record which was produced before for the the Court and sealed. of No

explanation

non-production

these

documents was given. It means that the result of written exams had, by that time, been destroyed or concealed deliberately along with award sheet and key book. could have No doubt, these three documents exposed the accused. In these

132

circumstances,

the

The

prosecution

was

not

required to do anything more to prove the loss of original result sheet.

109.

There is no doubt that question of

proof of a document is a question of procedure. On the other hand, question of admissibility relevancy of document is a question and

of law.

Therefore, where the objection taken is not that document is, in itself, inadmissible, but that the mode of proof put forward is irregular or insufficient, it is essential that the objection should be taken when the document is being marked as exhibit. In RVE Venkatachala Gounder Versus Arulmign Vishesaraswanri & VP Temple 2003 (8) SCC 752 the Hon'ble supreme Court held that objection as to admissibility that can be classified is as (i)

objection

the

document

itself

inadmissible (ii) objection directed not against the admissibility but against mode of proof on the ground of irregularity or insufficiency.

Objection under (i) can be raised at any stage but under (ii) only when the evidence is tendered and not after the document has been admitted in

133

evidence and marked as exhibit.

It was held that

the latter proposition is a rule of fair play. The crucial test is whether an objection, if

taken at appropriate point of time, would have enabled the party tendering evidence to cure the defect and resort to such mode of proof as would be regular. photo copy In that case marking as Exhibit a of certified and copy of of a charity note the

Commissioner's without

Order

that

rent In

objection

was

held

proper.

instant case when PW22 was deposing and the photo copy of the result sheet was being exhibited, after mentioning in detail as to how the original was prepared, no objection as to mode of proof was taken. Had such an objection been taken at that stage itself, the question of allowing or disallowing secondary evidence could have arisen. No doubt that merely because there has been no objection, formal proof of a document cannot be dispensed with but, that is altogether a

different proposition. If a party without proving the execution, existence or loss of original

document exhibits photo copy in absence of any objection from the opposite party, the document

134

can be said however, a

to have not been formally proved. If party after proving the execution,

existence and loss of original document goes on to exhibit photo copy without any objection, the document will be said to have been formally

proved by way of secondary evidence.

As already

observed above no separate permission from the Court in such an eventuality would be required. The question of permitting would arise or disallowing if the

secondary

evidence

only

question is raised when the document is being marked as exhibit. A party cannot lie by until

the case comes up at the stage of arguments. Needless to say that there is no question mark against the relevancy of ExPW22/1. Genuineness

thereof has been proved by Pw14 and PW22. Now at this stage to say that specific permission of the Court to lead secondary evidence was not obtained by the prosecution would not be fair. In Danyanti Bai Versus KM Shaffi 2004 (7) SCC 107,it was held that where a party gives certified the copy in

evidence entitling

without him to

proving give

circumstances evidence,

secondary

objection must be taken at the time of admission

135

and not at a later stage. much better for footing

The present case is on as the circumstances have been

requisite

secondary

evidence

established. 110. original secondary As discussed is of above, whenever or lost, of the any the

document evidence

destroyed the

contents

documents is admissible.

Within the meaning of

Section 63 secondary evidence means and includes photo copy and even oral account of the contents of a document by a person who has himself seen the original. Suppose the prosecution had failed

to get hold of photo copy. In that eventuality even oral account of the contents of the document by a witness, for example PW22, who had himself seen the original, would have been permissible. The question is as to whether for leading oral evidence move an also the prosecution for was required to to

application

permission

lead Oral be

secondary evidence? Answer would be 'no'. account of the contents of document

would

admissible on the proof of execution, existence and loss of the original. Therefore, there is

no reason to draw an distinction when secondary

136

evidence is to be led through photo copy or when it is to be led through oral account.

111.

If

ExPW22/1

is

studied

carefully

it

would be evident that Mahender Singh, Raj Singh, Mahabir Singh, Puneet Jain, Ajay Pal Kanswan,

Rakesh Kumar, Harbhajan Singh, Surinder Singh, Ramesh Kumar, Bajir Lal, Jagat Pal, Chander Bhan and Ram sigh had not qualified the written test. Accused Dalbir Singh was shown to have cleared the written test under Roll Number 12747.

Therefore, ExPW 22/1 corroborates the prosecution version that those who had not qualified the

written were shown to have been selected finally.

112.

Even if for the sake of argument it is

admitted that ExPW22/1 cannot be read in evidence for want of formal permission to lead secondary evidence, the fact remains that prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused independently through other documents. Needless

to say that ExPW22/1 is not the only document on which the prosecution has built up its case. It is only one of the documents. Even if it is

137

taken

out

of

reckoning,

no

dent

in

the

prosecution case is caused.

113. proper

Before to

moving decide

further,

it

would

be

whether

specimen

writings/signatures of accused A.P. Jain, Bachna Ram, Singh Samey and Singh Rao Kamboj, Pal Devi were Dayal, taken Sukhdev by the

Inder

Investigating Officer. of the material above.

In this context the names have fact already that been

witnesses The

mentioned

Specimen

signatures of

Sukhdev Singh were taken in the

presence of independent witnesses is proved from the statement of PW48 The Ram R.K. fact were Verma that taken and PW61

Jitender signatures

Sahay. of Bachna

specimen in the

presence of independent witness stands proved by Parmod Kumar Sharma PW45. of specimen signatures of Similarly, the taking Rao Inder Pal is

proved by PW51, PW53 and PW48.

That the specimen

signatures of Samey Singh were taken is proved by PW45 and PW50. PW45 also proves that specimen Likewise PW

signatures of Devi Dayal were taken. 59 Rajesh Gupta and

PW60 Anand Rana have proved

138

that specimen signatures of A.P. Jain were taken. All these witnesses are categorical that specimen signatures were given the

voluntarily

without any pressure. 114. Even otherwise, it is not the case of

any of the accused that he was pressurized or compelled to lend his specimen signatures/

writings. The case of the accused is that of plain denial. Therefore, the provisions of

Article 20(3) of Constitution of India would not be attracted.

115.

Even if, for a pause, the specimen

signatures of accused Samey Singh, Bachna Ram, Inder Pal, Devi Dayal and A.P. Jain are not taken into consideration, the fact remains that their proven signatures are available on record. have been marked as 'A' Series. These

Those of Sukhdev

Singh exist on ExPW28/19, ExPW28/20, ExPW28/21 and ExPW28/22; Bachna Ram's proven signatures are on ExPW28/10, ExPW28/11 and ExPW28/12. Rao Inder

Pal's proven signatures are ExPW28/13. Those of Samey Singh are on ExPW28/17 and ExPW28/18. Devi

Dayal's proven signatures are ExPW28/4, ExPW28/7

139

and ExPW28/16 while those of A.P. Jain are on ExPW28/3, ExPW28/4, ExPW28/5, ExPW28/6, ExPW28/8, ExPW28/19 and ExPW28/20. duly identified by PW28 All of them have been Bhupinder Pal Singh.

These documents were being maintained in official course. In other words these documents have come Therefore, the same cannot

from official record.

be said to have been forged. To form opinion the expert not only compared the 'S' series of

signatures/writings but also the 'A' series with the questioned signatures/writings. His opinion is comprehensive. He has given categorical

opinion about the identity of authorship of 'A' series viz-a-viz the questioned signatures. The

Court has also scanned the documents carefully and has compared the signatures appearing thereon with those on questioned documents and has found itself in conformity with the Expert.

116.

Even otherwise the accused Devi Dayal,

Samey Singh, Sukhdev Singh, Inder Pal and Bachna Ram never came out with the defence that all of their signatures on the documents discussed herein-above were forged. Merely because some or

140

most of them were forged it does not mean that they are not guilty. As discussed above, these

accused were part of larger conspiracy to select those who had not even cleared written test. If during the execution of that larger plan their signatures were got forged on some documents for the sake of convenience or as a ruse, it does not matter much. declared. why they The fact remains that result was

If these accused were not party to it did not object at any appropriate

stage?.

Why didn't they come forward when the were in challenged? fabricating Why the did they

selections participate

resolution

ExPw17/2? Why didn't they inform the Hon'ble High Court or the Supreme Court that they had no role in declaration of the result or that their

signatures had been forged? Why did Devi Dayal, Samey Singh and Bachna Ram submit affidavits in the Hon'ble Supreme Court giving wrong

information?

Now at this belated stage if they

plead that their signatures on affidavits were obtained by A.P. Jain by keeping them in dark about the contents thereof it can be nothing but an after thought. It is interesting to note that

141

when Devi Dayal, Bachna Ram and being that examined their in defence on

Samey Singh were while stating were

they, some

signatures

papers

obtained by A.P. Jain

by keeping them in dark,

tried to explain that even previously A.P. Jain had obtained their signatures on bunch of papers in the like manner and; that they had no reason to suspect him as he used to get their signatures whenever they used to reach office. Wasn't it

too late for them to have come out with this revelation? It is evident that having been

pushed to the corner A.P. Jain tried to put the blame across Devi Dayal, Bachna Ram and Samey Singh. They, in turn, tried to paint picture as Otherwise

it only A.P. Jain was the culprit.

they had the opportunity to speak out much before the charge sheet was filed. the Board, who had been If the officials of used in forging

documents, could come out with clear and true facts before the Investigating Officer, what

stopped Devi Dayal, Samey Singh, Sukhdev Singh, Bachna Ram and Inder Pal? they had purposely The fact remains that the fabricated

signed

resolution and the interview sheets in back dates

142

to

justify

the

selections

and

they

had

no

defence. Needless to say that the prosecution, on its part, has successfully proved the roles

played by the accused persons.

117.

It is impossible for the prosecution to

give wholly convincing evidence on certain issues from its own hand and it is, therefore, for the accused to give evidence on them if he wants to escape. Positive facts should always be proved by the prosecution but the same rule cannot always apply to negative facts. to anticipate or It and is not for the all may does

prosecution possible

eliminate which

defence

circumstances

exonerate the accused.

Again when a person

not act with some intention other than that which the character it is and not circumstances for the of the Act to

suggest,

prosecution

eliminate all other possible intentions.

If an

accused has a different intention, that is the fact specially within his knowledge and which he must have prove (Re: Naina Mohammed A.I.R. 1960 Madras 218).

143

118.

The observations in the pronouncement are applicable to the facts of the

cited above

case in hand. If the accused Devi Dayal, Samey Singh, Sukhdev Singh, Bachna Ram and Inder Pal knew that they or, had that no role to play in were the not

selections genuine or

their Jain

signatures had

that

A.P.

obtained

their

signatures on certain documents without showing them the contents these were the facts specially within their knowledge. the same. They should have proved

As discussed above they have failed in

this regard.

119.

Learned counsel for accused Devi Dayal,

Samey Singh, Sukhdev Singh, Bachna Ram and Inder Pal would argue that A.P. Jain had personal

interest in the matter in the sense that his son Puneet Jain was a candidate. But the Board their

Members had no personal interest. None of

relations was a candidate. They stood to gain nothing Jain. by entering into conspiracy with A.P.

Learned counsel for Sukhdev Singh and Rao

Inder Pal went on to contend that they were only casual visitors even when interviews were held

144

therefore, to say that they were participants in conspiracy would not be fair.

120.

The

Court

believes

that

it

was

not

necessary for the prosecution to prove that Devi Dayal, Samey Singh, Sukhdev Singh, Bachna Ram and Inder Pal had their relatives appearing as

candidates. Personal interest can take several forms. Relative being one of the candidates is one of those forms. interests. There can be various other

Therefore, merely because there is no Devi Dayal,

evidence that any close relative of

Samey Singh, Sukhdev Singh, Bachna Ram and Inder Pal was a candidate, it does not mean that they had no reason to enter into conspiracy with A.P. Jain. They to may have become party to of the their

conspiracy liking.

select

other

persons

There could have been monetary gains in

offing. It was not for the prosecution to pin point the motive. Similarly if samey Singh and

Rao Inder Pal were just casual visitors when the interviews were being conducted it does not mean that they could not be conspirators. It is not the case of the prosecution that the meeting of

145

the interview committees were manipulated. case is that the record concerning

The

interview

sheets was tampered with at a later stage in order to justify the selections and by Rao of willing Pal

candidates. became

Sukhdev to the

Singh fraud

Inder

parties

putting

their

signatures on forged documents in back date.

121.

Learned counsel for accused A.P. Jain

has argued that the sanction order ExPW70/1 is not legal and valid in as much as the competent authority to accord sanction was the Government.

The Chief Secretary was merely a communicating Officer and hence, to it was orders Expanding the duty of by the the

prosecution Governor of

prove

passed the

Haryana.

argument,

learned counsel pointed out that a bare glance over the order would make it clear that there

was no application of mind as in the opening para it has been mentioned that the case has been registered interalia, under Section 193 of IPC

while Section 201 has been mentioned in para 14 of the orders whereas neither the case was

registered under these provisions nor challan was

146

filed for the prosecution of the accused under these sections. the sanction out of While taking the Court through orders that in learned para 13 14 (1) counsel of (d) the read further orders with

pointed

provisions

Section

Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act has been referred and in para No.16 it is

mentioned that sanction is being accorded for the offences as detailed in para 14, which means that sanction was with regard to the prosecution of the accused A.P. Jain under Section 197 of Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, whereas the

sanction under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act has to be granted separately and independently by the competent authority. This, according to the counsel, proves that sanction was granted in a very casual manner which is further proved by the fact that PW17 signed the The the

orders twice over at the foot of the same. first signatures are above the words by

orders of the Governor of Haryana and the second signatures are above the words M.C. Gupta Chief Secretary of the Govt of Haryana.

147

122.

Learned counsel for accused Bachna Ram,

Samey Singh, Devi Dayal, Sukhdev Singh and Rao Inder Pal have added that being members of S.S.S. Board they were the public servants and hence the prosecution against them could not have been

launched without prior sanction by the Govt. But no such sanction was obtained thereby rendering bad the very cognizance of the offence against them.

123. In para

The No.1

sanction it has

order been

has

been

perused. that the

mentioned

F.I.R. has been registered under Sections 120-B read with Sections 420, 193, 468, 471 of Indian Penal Code and Section 13 (1) (d) read with

Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. I have gone through the F.I.R wherein It would be

these very provisions are mentioned.

wrong to say that no case was ever registered under Section 193 of Indian Penal Code. far as para No.14 of the sanction In so order

(ExPW70/1) is concerned, it was mentioned by the sanctioning authority that the act of the accused

148

constituted the offences punishable under Section 120-B read with Sections 420, 468, and 471 of Indian Penal Code, Section 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 468, and 471 also and under 201 substantive of Indian sections Code 420, and

Penal

Sections 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on part of A.P. Jain and other accused persons. By

mentioning so, the sanctioning authority was not referring to the F.I.R. The authority was

expressing his mind as to under which provisions the offence alleged to have been committed by the accused would fall. If he added Section 201 of Indian Penal Code in para No.14 which was not there in the F.I.R. it would mean that he applied his mind to the entire facts of the case in as much as, one of the allegation was that accused had caused destruction or disappearance of record with intention to screening because in themselves the from

punishment.

Simply

concluding

paras, while making reference to the provisions of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Sanctioning Authority mentioned that Sanction

149

was being accorded for the offences as detailed in para 14 above, it does not mean that there was lack of application of mind. The purpose of para

14 was to mention in detail the offences which were made out. Mere reference to that para in

the concluding paras does not mean that sanction was accorded under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act with regard to the offences under Section 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Otherwise

the sanction authority was alive to the fact that sanction was being accorded under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In so far as the appearance of signatures of PW17 on two places at the foot of the order (ExPW70/1) is concerned the same, by itself, would not mean that he signed on the dotted lines. When P.W. M.C. Gupta stepped

in the witness box he was not asked to explain as to why he signed twice over in the end of the sanction order. In absence of anything more, this could be just an error which does not go to the root of the matter.

124.

In so far as the competent authority is

150

concerned, it was the Govt. of Haryana.

Article

154 of the Constitution of India deals with the Executive Governor. powers of the State which vest in

The Governor has to act only on the For the

advise of council of the ministers.

smooth and convenient transaction of business of the Government, Rules of business are framed.

According to PW17 the power to issue sanction for prosecution Secretary stands the delegated Rules of to the Chief and in

under

business

exercise of those powers he has accorded sanction for the prosecution of A.P. Jain. any executive action of the No doubt that has to be

Govt.

expressed in the name of the Governor but, it is the authority to whom the powers have been

delegated who has to pass the order effectively. No evidence was directed against PW17 that he was not competent to issue sanction under the Rules of business. Merely because the Rules of

business have not been placed on record is no ground to disbelieve PW70 when he states so.

125.

Even if, for a pause, it is admitted

that sanction was not accorded by the competent

151

authority or, that the competent authority did not apply his mind, the fact remains that the accused are alleged to have committed offences under Section 120-B, 320, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code. Hon'ble In view of the law laid down by Court in Parkash Singh Badal

Supreme

Versus State of Punjab 2007 (1) RCR (Criminal) 1 these offences, by no stretch of imagination, can be regarded as having been committed by any

public servant while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of official duty. Hence, no

sanction for prosecution within the meaning of Section 19 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was required.

126.

So

far

as

the

requirement

of

Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is concerned, it is well settled that

protection under this provision is available to a Public servant so long as he is in office. If cognizance of the offence by the Court is taken after the concerned public servant has ceased to hold the office, the sanction for prosecution is not required as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in

152

Parkash Singh Badal's case (Supra).

There is no

denying the fact that at the time when this Court took cognizance of the offence neither accused A.P. Jain nor Bachna Ram, Samey Singh, Devi

Dayal, Sukhdev Singh and Rao Inder Pal were the public servants. Hence sanction for their

prosecution under Section 19 was not required. 127. Learned counsel for Puneet Jain would

argue that his joint trial with the other accused is not permissible. out that the To elaborate this he points of Puneet Jain under

charging

Section 120-B IPC read with Sections 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code and Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act jointly with other accused was not warranted specially when he had been charged under Section 420 I.P.C. For

commission of substantive offence.

According to

the counsel the offence under Section 420 IPC cannot be said to have been committed in the course of same transaction. no allegation that under Section 420 Similarly, there is

commission of the offence of Indian Penal Code was

abetted by all the accused or that it was jointly committed by them. Learned counsel would point

153

out that the allegation against Puneet Jain is that he did not appear for interview, having

failed to clear the written test but, still his name was included and, on in the the list of of selective

candidates

basis

appointment

letter he joined Excise and Taxation Department. Therefore, the commission of offence under

Section 420 of Indian Penal Code, if any, by Puneet Jain is independent of other offences such as 467, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code and, as such, he could have been charged under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code only with those persons who happened to have acted in criminal conspiracy in commission of the offence under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code and Since Singh Inder Kamboj, Pal, Devi Dayal, Singh, Bachna Ram, Samey Sukhdev Mahender Singh, Singh, Rao Raj

Dalbir

Singh, Mahabir Singh, Ajay Pal Kanswan, Rakesh Kumar, Harbhajan Singh, Surinder Kumar, Ramesh Kumar, Bajir Lal, Jagat Pal, Chander Bhan and Ram Singh are not concerned with the commission of offence alleged to have been committed by Public servant, persons the is trial illegal of Puneet which Jain his with those in

resulted

154

miscarriage of justice and a great prejudice to Puneet Jain for the simple reason that a number of witnesses who were not required to be produced against him have been produced. Learned counsel

further argued that had Puneet Jain been tried separately, a small number of witnesses would

have deposed which would have finished the trial within shortest possible time but the joint trial has resulted into agony for the accused.

128.

The Court is of the opinion that

there is no irregularity or illegality in joint trial of Puneet Jain with other accused. In view

of Section 223 of the Cr.P.C. Persons accused of different same offences committed can be in the course and of

transaction

charged

tried

together.

In the instant case either the same

offence was committed by different persons in the Course of same transaction or different offences were committed by different persons in the court of same transaction i.e. process of selection for the posts of Taxation Inspectors. Therefore, all

the accused could be charged and tried jointly. Even otherwise the offence of conspiracy and any

155

offence committed in pursuance to be regarded and as the forming persons

of conspiracy are part of the of same such

transaction

accused

offence can be tried together as held in Babu Lal Vs. 130. Bachna Chaukhani Vs. King-Empror A.I.R.1937 P.C.

A.P. Jain was the Secretary of the Board. Ram, Samey Singh Kamboj, Devi Dayal,

Sukhdev Singh, Rao Inder Pal were the members. Accused Mahender Singh, Raj Singh, Mahabir

Singh, Ajay Pal Kanswan, Rakesh Kumar, Harbhajan Singh, Surinder Kumar, Ramesh Kumar, Bajir Lal, Jagat Pal, Chander Bhan and Ram Singh are the candidates who were selected. The conspiracy was to select these candidates who were otherwise not on merit. Therefore, to say that a particular

candidate who got selected in pursuance of the conspiracy should have been charged and tried

separately from the other accused would not be fair. Needless to say that the joint trial of

all the accused is proper.

129.

Counsel

for

accused

Chander

Bhan

and

Bajir Lal would argue that they did not receive appointment letters, therefore, they cannot be

156

said to have cheated or even attempted to cheat.

130. some

Argument does not cut much ice. reason appointment letters could

If for not be

issued to Bajir Lal and Chander Bhan, it cannot be said that they are not the beneficiaries or that no offence was committed by them. The

offence was complete the moment these accused, who had neither cleared the written test nor

appeared for interviews were shown selected and recommended for appointment.

131.

In view of the discussion foregoing

the prosecution has been able to prove by direct evidence that the record regarding examinations for recruitment was and to the posts with of Taxation fabricated a view to

Inspectors dishonestly

tampered

and with

fraudulently

defraud the Board as well as the Government to select those candidates who would not have been selected but for the deception and forgery.

That these acts were committed in pursuance of criminal persons conspiracy is proved hatched from between the accused

circumstances

157

established on record.

132.

Conspiracy

is

matter

of

inference

deduced from

criminal acts of accused persons

done in pursuance of an apparent criminal purpose common between them. doubt Singh Rao The that prosecution A.P. Jain has and

established Bachna Sukhdev Ram,

beyond Samey and

Kamboj, Pal

Devi

Dayal, the

Singh

Inder

prepared

result of the examination in such a manner as to select even those who had either failed to clear even the written test or those who had failed to secure sufficient marks in viva voce. was tampered with, destroyed or The record to

concealed

justify the result so declared. purpose new record viz the

For the same (ExPW17/25)

result

and, the list of candidates having qualified the written test after All revaluation this could (ExPW17/3) not have was been

fabricated.

possible without the active connivance between A.P. Jain and Devi Dayal, Bachna Ram, Samey Singh Kamboj, Sukhdev Singh, Rao Inder Pal.

Accused Dalbir Singh,

Mahender Singh, Raj Singh,

Mahabir Singh, Ajay Pal Kanswan, Rakesh Kumar,

158

Harbhajan Singh, Surinder Kumar, Ramesh Kumar, Bajir Lal, Jagat Pal, Chander Bhan and Ram Singh joined them with full knowledge of the modus

operandi of the conspiracy and with the intention and object to get benefit arising out of the acts of the conspirators. It is not necessary that

all the conspirators must be proved to have sat together in the inception to arrive at

agreement. What is necessary is that be unity of design or purpose. at any stage. purpose, necessary as in

there must

That can happen

If the agreement has unlawful the instant case, it have is not

that

prosecution

should

proved

that means were agreed on. Merely because none of the aforementioned candidates-accused has been

attributed an overt act in the fabrication of record, it does not There mean may that be they were not acts It is

conspirators.

several

committed in pursuance of the conspiracy.

not necessary that all the conspirators should have joined in overt act or in every one of

several overt acts.

So far as the Bajir Lal and

Chander Bhan are concerned, no doubt they were not yet issued the appointment letters. But the

159

fact remains that their names were recommended for appointment in pursuance of the conspiracy. In order to bring home the guilt against them, it was not necessary that the ultimate object of conspiracy Inspectors them. Singh, i.e. should appointment have been as Taxation qua

accomplished

The mere fact that the

accused Dalbir

Mahender Singh, Raj Singh, Mahabir Singh,

Ajay Pal Kanswan, Rakesh Kumar, Harbhajan Singh, Surinder Kumar, Ramesh Kumar, Bajir Lal, Jagat Pal, Chander Bhan and Ram Singh had either not qualified the written test or had not obtained sufficient marks in interview but, the records were tampered with in that order there to justify their of

selections,

proves

was

meeting

minds between them and the accused A.P. Jain, Bachna Ram, Samey Singh Kamboj, Devi Dayal,

Sukhdev Singh, Rao Inder Pal. Otherwise why would they have tampered with the record?. Infact each

and every act of the accused was actuated by dishonest and fraudulent intention. In order to achieve Bachna the Ram, object Samey the accused A.P. Jain and

Singh

Kamboj,

Devi

Dayal,

Sukhdev Singh and Rao Inder Pal did not even

160

hesitate

to

use

corrupt

and

illegal

means

in

obtaining for the accused Dalbir Singh, Singh, Raj Singh, Mahabir Singh,

Mahender Ajay Pal

Kanswan, Rakesh Kumar, Harbhajan Singh, Surinder Kumar, Ramesh Kumar, Bajir Lal, Jagat Pal,

Chander Bhan and Ram Singh a valuable thing i.e. selection as Taxation Inspectors. inference would be that they A necessary did this for

pecuniary gains for themselves also.

133.

As an upshot of the above discussion,

the prosecution having succeeded in proving its case beyond doubt are all the in points favour of under the

consideration

decided

prosecution. Consequently,

i)

All the accused are hereby, convicted under Code. Section 120-B of Indian Penal

ii)

All the accused are hereby, convicted under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code. (It is pertient to mention that

accused Bajir Lal and Chander Bhan were charged under Section 420 read with

161

Section 511 of Indian Penal Code on the premise that they had attempted to cheat the Board. However, as observed above,

the object of conspiracy was achieved the moment Bajir Lal and Chander Bhan were selected. Therefore, there was no question of attempt to cheat. them deserve cheated to be the Board and Both of hence, the

convicted

for

substantive offence under Section 420 of Indian accused. Penal Code alongwith other

For that limited purpose the

charge 'thirdly' framed on 28.5.1999 has been amended today so as to convert it into Section 420 of Indian Penal Code instead of Section 420 read with Section 511 of Indian Penal Code. The alteration has been read and explained to the

accused.

In the opinion of the Court

the alteration is of such nature which would not require recalling or summoning of any witness. of the charge The sum and substance remains the same.

Therefore, alteration is not going to

162

prejudice the accused in his defence or the prosecution in the conduct of the case. proceeding Therefore, ahead as the if Court the is

altered

charge had been originally framed.

iii)

Accused Ajit Parsad Jain,

Bachna

Ram,

Samey Singh Kamboj, Devi Dayal,Sukhdev Singh and Rao Inder Pal Singh are

convicted under Section 466 of Indian Penal Code. (It is worth mention that originally the charge was framed under Section 467 of Indian Penal Code but since the record forged by the accused does not fall

within the ambit of 'valuable security', the Court has deemed fit not to convict the accused under Section 467 of Indian Penal Code. This is a case of forgery

of a document purporting to be made by a public servant in his official capacity which falls within the ambit of Section 466 of Indian Penal Code. offence under Section 466 Since the of Indian

163

Penal Code is lessor

as compared to the

one under Section 467 of Indian Penal Code, no need of amending charge.) iv) Accused Ajit Parsad Jain, Bachna Ram,

Samey Singh Kamboj, Devi Dayal,Sukhdev Singh and Rao Inder Pal Singh are

convicted under Section 468 of Indian Penal Code. v) Accused Ajit Parsad Jain, Bachna Ram,

Samey Singh Kamboj, Devi Dayal,Sukhdev Singh and Rao Inder Pal Singh are

convicted under Section 471 of Indian Penal Code.

vi)

Accused Dalbir Singh, Raj Singh, Mahabir

Mahender Singh, Singh, Ajay Pal

Kanswan, Rakesh Kumar, Harbhajan Singh, Surinder Kumar, Ramesh Kumar, Bajir Lal, Jagat Pal, Chander Bhan and Ram Singh are with Code. convicted Section under 120-B Section of 466 read Penal

Indian

vii)

Accused Dalbir Singh,

Mahender Singh,

164

Raj

Singh,

Mahabir

Singh,

Ajay

Pal

Kanswan, Rakesh Kumar, Harbhajan Singh, Surinder Kumar, Ramesh Kumar, Bajir Lal, Jagat Pal, Chander Bhan and Ram Singh are with Code. convicted Section under 120-B Section of 468 read Penal

Indian

viii)

Accused Dalbir Singh, Raj Singh, Mahabir

Mahender Singh, Singh, Ajay Pal

Kanswan, Rakesh Kumar, Harbhajan Singh, Surinder Kumar, Ramesh Kumar, Bajir Lal, Jagat Pal, Chander Bhan and Ram Singh are with Code. convicted Section under 120-B Section of 471 read Penal

Indian

ix)

Accused Ajit Parsad Jain,

Bachna

Ram,

Samey Singh Kamboj, Devi Dayal,Sukhdev Singh and Rao Inder Pal Singh are

convicted under Section 13 1 (d) read with 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. x) Accused Dalbir Singh, Mahender Singh,

165

Raj Singh,

Mahabir

Singh,

Ajay

Pal

Kanswan, Rakesh Kumar, Harbhajan Singh, Surinder Kumar, Lal, Jagat Pal, Ramesh Kumar, Bajir

Chander Bhan and Ram under Section 13

Singh are convicted

(1) (d)read with 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code.

Let the convicts be heard on question of sentence. Pronounced:2.8.2008. (Jagdeep Jain) Special Judge, Chandigarh.

This Judgment Contains 166p pages and all the pages have been signed by me. (Jagdeep Jain) Special Judge, Chandigarh.

166

Present:-

Shri R.L. Negi, Sr. Public Prosecutor for C.B.I. Convicts A.P. Jain and Puneet on bail being assisted by Shri A.S. Chahal Advocate. Convict Devi Dayal on bail being assisted by Shri Jaspal Singh Advocate. Convicts Bachana Ram and Samey Singh on bail being assisted by Shri V.B. Aggarwal Advocate. Convicts Chander Bhan on bail being assisted by Shri Anil Mahajan Advocate. Convict Mohinder Singh on bail being assisted by Shri Sunil Kumar Advocate. Convict Dalbir Singh on bail being assisted by Shri Ajit Pal Singh Advocate. Convicts Rakesh Kumar, Surinder Kumar, Raj singh, Wazir Lal, Ram Singh, Ajay jagat Pal and Harbhajan Singh,Sukhdev Singh and Rao Inder Pal Singh on bail being assisted by Shri K.K. Aggarwal, Senior Advocate and Shri Pawan Kumar Kukreja Advocates.

QUANTUM OF SENTENCE:1. sentence. Jain, Rao Heard the convicts on question of Bachana Ram, Samey Singh Kamboj, AP Inder Pal Singh, Devi Dayal and

Sukhdev Singh have cited their age as relevant factor coupled with ailments they are suffering
167

from.

Besides this, they have taken usual plea

that in their absence there would be nobody to look after their families. Chander Bhan is

working as a teacher. Inspector Weights &

Bajir Lal is employed as Measures. Ram Singh is

working as BDPO.

Mahavir Singh, aged 56, is Office. Raj Singh

working as Clerk in Treasury

and Puneet Jain are in private service. Ajay Pal and Bachana Ram are advocates. Jagat Pal,

Dalbir Singh, Sukhdev Singh, Devi Dayal, Samey Singh Kamboj, Rakesh Kumar, Mohinder Singh and Surinder are engaged in agriculture. Inder Pal is in business while Ramesh is a labourer. prayed for

While those who are in service have

lenient view on that ground, those engaged in agriculture, business or profession have sought concession would lose pleading that their entire families their livelihood if they are sent

behind bars.

Chander Bhan and Bajir Lal have

come up with additional plea that they had not received strictly the appointment they letters be and held hence, to be

speaking,

cannot

beneficiaries. 2. In State of M.P. Versus Santosh Kumar

168

2006 (3) RCR (Criminal) 554, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while speaking on the operation of the

sentencing system observed that law should adopt the corrective machinery or the deterrence based on factual matrix. By deft modulation the

sentencing processing be stern where it should be, and tempered with mercy where it warrants to be. The facts and given circumstances in each

case, the nature of the crime, the manner in which it was planned and committed, the motive for commission of the crime, the conduct of the convict, the nature of weapons used and all other attending circumstances are relevant facts which would enter into the area of consideration.

The Hon'ble court went on to hold that proportion between crime and punishment is a goal respected in principle and hence, punishment ought always

to fit the crime as, undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy 3. Here, of this law. court is dealing with

unscrupulous public servants and those who want to become such public servants by devious

169

means.

Such like persons debase and defile the the

very system they are expected to protect. kind of crime committed by them in

common

parlance is known as 'corruption in civil life' which is spreading its tentacles far and wide. It is getting contagious and threatening to

devour the very vitals out of the bone-marrow of society. A crime committed in the heat of

passion may call for sympathetic consideration. But, a calculated and organized crime like the one committed with in the and instant case must be

visited

severe

deterrent

punishment.

However, it does not mean that the mitigating circumstances trying to are not a to be counted between in while and

strike

balance

crime

punishment.

One of the mitigating circumstances The age and

is the long and protracted trial.

the health of the convicts besides their present status have also to be given due weightage.

4.

The

Court,

after

giving

thoughtful

consideration to the facts, circumstances, and nature of the crime; the manner in which it was planned and committed; and the motive and

170

conduct of each convict, is of the firm opinion that axis. A.P. Jain was the king pin. He was the

The remaining convicts were the allies.

Technically Board members viz Bachna Ram, Samey Singh Kamboj, Devi Dayal, Sukhdev Singh and Rao same offence

Inder Pal Singh have committed the

perpetrated by A.P. Jain but their conducts sets them Jain. them apart on a different footing than A.P.

Therefore, it would not be fair to treat with the same severity which A.P. Jain

deserves.

The same would apply to the other They were

convicts which were the candidates.

the beneficiaries but, the master mind was A.P. Jain. It was he who manipulated everything.

The candidates wanted share in the cake which was not meant for them. A.P. Jain was the

custodian of that cake.

Onus lied heavily on who deserved got

him to ensure that only those a share. process

He was to ensure transparency in the of selection but, he subverted the

entire machinery so as to snatch the right of selections from the deserving candidates and

give it to the unworthy. Ram, Samey Singh Kamboj,

The members Devi

Bachna

Dayal, Sukhdev

171

Singh and Rao Inder Pal Singh assisted him in achieving the object. the Court hereby, Keeping all this in mind, the convicts as

sentences

under:1. i) A.P.Jain Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code: To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5

(five) years and to pay fine of Rs.4,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 3 (three) months.

ii) Section 420 of Indian Penal Code: To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5

(five) years and to pay fine of Rs.4,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 3 (three) months.

iii. Section 466 of Indian Penal Code: To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5

(five) years and to pay fine of Rs.4,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 3 (three)

172

months.

iv. Section 468 of Indian Penal Code: To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5

(five) years and to pay fine of Rs.4,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 3 (three) months. v. Section 471 of Indian Penal Code: To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-. of payment of fine, to In default further

undergo

rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one) months.

vi. Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5

(five) years and to pay fine of Rs.4,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 3 (three) months.

2. i)

Bachna Ram Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code: To undergo rigorous

173

imprisonment

for

(three) years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one) month.

ii) Section 420 of Indian Penal Code: To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3

(three) years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one) month.

iii. Section 466 of Indian Penal Code: To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3

(three)years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one) month.

iv. Section 468 of Indian Penal Code: To undergo rigorous imprisonment for

3(three) years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/. In default of payment of fine, to undergo

further rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one)

174

month. v. Section 471 of Indian Penal Code: To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 (two) years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. default of payment of fine, to In

undergo

further rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one) month.

vi. Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. To undergo rigorous imprisonment for

3(three) years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/. In default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2(two)

further months.

3. i)

Samey Singh Kamboj. Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code: To undergo rigorous imprisonment for

3(three) years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/. In default of payment of fine, to undergo

further rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one) month.

ii) Section 420 of Indian Penal Code:

175

To

undergo

rigorous

imprisonment

for

3(three) years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/. In default of payment of fine, to undergo

further rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one ) month.

iii. Section 466 of Indian Penal Code: To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3

(three) years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo further month. rigorous imprisonment for1 (one)

iv. Section 468 of Indian Penal Code: To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3

(three)years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo further month. v. Section 471 of Indian Penal Code: To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 (two) years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. default of payment of fine, to In rigorous imprisonment for one

undergo

further rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one)

176

month. vi. Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3

(three)years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 2 (two) months. 4. i) Devi Dayal. Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code: To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3

(three) years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one ) month.

ii) Section 420 of Indian Penal Code: To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. of payment of fine, to In default further month.

undergo

rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one)

iii. Section 466 of Indian Penal Code: To undergo rigorous

177

imprisonment

for

(three) years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one) month.

iv. Section 468 of Indian Penal Code: To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3

(three) years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/. In default of payment of fine, to

undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one) v. month.

Section 471 of Indian Penal Code: To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 (two) years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. default of payment of fine, to In

undergo

further rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one) month. vi. Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3

(three)years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 2 (two) months.
178

5 i)

Sukhdev Singh.

Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code: To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3

(three) years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for month. 1 (one)

ii) Section 420 of Indian Penal Code: To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3

(three)years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one) month.

iii. Section 466 of Indian Penal Code: To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3

(three) years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo further month). rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one

iv. Section 468 of Indian Penal Code: To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years

179

and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. of payment of fine, to

In default further

undergo

rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one ) month. v. Section 471 of Indian Penal Code: To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 (two) years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. default of payment of fine, to In

undergo (one)

further rigorous imprisonment for 1 month. vi.

Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. To undergo rigorous imprisonment for

3(three) years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/. In default of payment of fine, to undergo (two)

further rigorous imprisonment for 2 months.

6. i)

Rao Inder Pal. Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code: To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3

(three) years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for month.
180

1 (one)

ii)

Section 420 of Indian Penal Code: To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3

(three)years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo further month. rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one)

iii. Section 466 of Indian Penal Code: To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3

(three) years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo further month). rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one

iv.

Section 468 of Indian Penal Code: To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. of payment of fine, to In default further

undergo

rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one ) month. v. Section 471 of Indian Penal Code: To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 (two) years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. default of payment of fine, to In

undergo (one)

further rigorous imprisonment for 1

181

month. vi. Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. To undergo rigorous imprisonment for

3(three) years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/. In default of payment of fine, to undergo (two)

further rigorous imprisonment for 2 months.

7. i)

Dalbir Singh. Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code: To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3

(three) years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for month. 1 (one)

ii)

Section 420 of Indian Penal Code: To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3

(three)years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo further month. rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one)

182

iii) Section 466 read with 120-B of Indian Penal Code. To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3

(three) years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo further month). rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one

iv.

Section 468 read with 120-B of Indian Code.

Penal

To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. of payment of fine, to In default further

undergo

rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one ) month. v. Section 471 Code: To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 (two) years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. default of payment of fine, to In read with 120-Bof Indian Penal

undergo (one)

further rigorous imprisonment for 1 month. vi. Section 13(2) of Prevention of

Corruption Penal

Act read with Section 120-B of Indian Code.

183

To

undergo

rigorous

imprisonment

for

3(three) years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/. In default of payment of fine, to undergo (two)

further rigorous imprisonment for 2 months.

8. i)

Mohender Singh. Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code: To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3

(three) years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for month. 1 (one)

ii)

Section 420 of Indian Penal Code: To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3

(three)years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo further month. iii) Section 466 read with 120-B of Indian Penal Code. To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one)

(three) years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-.

184

In default of payment of fine, to undergo further month). iv. Section 468 read with 120-B of Indian Code. To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. of payment of fine, to In default further Penal rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one

undergo

rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one ) month. v. Section 471 Code: To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 (two) years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. default of payment of fine, to In read with 120-Bof Indian Penal

undergo (one)

further rigorous imprisonment for 1 month. vi. Section 13(2) of Prevention of

Corruption Penal

Act read with Section 120-B of Indian Code. To undergo rigorous imprisonment

for

3(three) years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/. In default of payment of fine, to undergo (two)

further rigorous imprisonment for 2 months.

185

9. i.

Raj Singh. Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code: To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3

(three) years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for month. ii) Section 420 of Indian Penal Code: To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 1 (one)

(three)years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one) month. iii. Section 466 read with 120-B of Indian Penal Code. To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3

(three) years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo further month). iv. Section 468 read with 120-B of Indian Code. To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default Penal rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one

186

of

payment

of

fine,

to

undergo

further

rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one ) month. v. Section 471 Code: To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 (two) years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. default of payment of fine, to In read with 120-Bof Indian Penal

undergo (one)

further rigorous imprisonment for 1 month. vi. Section 13(2) of Prevention of

Corruption Penal

Act read with Section 120-B of Indian Code. To undergo rigorous imprisonment

for

3(three) years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/. In default of payment of fine, to undergo (two)

further rigorous imprisonment for 2 months. 10. Mahabir Singh. i) Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code: To undergo rigorous imprisonment

for

(three) years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for month. 1 (one)

187

ii) Section 420 of Indian Penal Code: To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3

(three)years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one) month. iii. Section 466 read with 120-B of Indian Penal Code. To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3

(three) years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo further month). iv. Section 468 read with 120-B of Indian Code. To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. of payment of fine, to In default further Penal rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one

undergo

rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one ) month. v. Section 471 Code: To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 (two) years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. default of payment of fine, to In read with 120-Bof Indian Penal

undergo

188

further rigorous imprisonment for 1 month.

(one)

vi. Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. To undergo rigorous imprisonment for

3(three) years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/. In default of payment of fine, to undergo (two)

further rigorous imprisonment for 2 months. 11. Puneet i) Jain

Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code: To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3

(three) years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for month. ii) Section 420 of Indian Penal Code: To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 1 (one)

(three)years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one) month. iii.Section 466 read with 120-B of Indian

Penal Code.
189

To

undergo

rigorous

imprisonment

for

(three) years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo further month). rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one

iv. Section 468 read with 120-B of Indian Code.

Penal

To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. of payment of fine, to In default further

undergo

rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one ) month. v Section 471 Code: To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 (two) years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. default of payment of fine, to In read with 120-Bof Indian Penal

undergo (one)

further rigorous imprisonment for 1 month.

vi. Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code. To undergo rigorous imprisonment for

3(three) years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/190

In default of payment of fine, to undergo (two)

further rigorous imprisonment for 2 months. 12. Ajay Pal Kanswan. i) Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code: To undergo rigorous imprisonment

for

(three) years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for month. ii) Section 420 of Indian Penal Code: To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 1 (one)

(three)years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one) month. Iii.Section 466 read with 120-B of Indian Penal Code. To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3

(three) years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo further month). iv. Section 468 read with 120-B of Indian Penal rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one

191

Code. To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. of payment of fine, to In default further

undergo

rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one ) month. v Section 471 Code: To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 (two) years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. default of payment of fine, to In read with 120-Bof Indian Penal

undergo (one)

further rigorous imprisonment for 1 month. vi. Section 13(2) of Prevention of

Corruption

Act read with Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code. To undergo rigorous imprisonment for

3(three) years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/. In default of payment of fine, to undergo (two)

further rigorous imprisonment for 2 months. 13 i) Rakesh Kumar. Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code: To undergo rigorous imprisonment

for

(three) years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-.

192

In default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for month. ii) Section 420 of Indian Penal Code: To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 1 (one)

(three)years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one) month. iii) Section 466 read with 120-B of Indian Penal Code. To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3

(three) years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo further month). rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one

iv. Section 468 read with 120-B of Indian Code.

Penal

To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. of payment of fine, to In default further

undergo

rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one ) month. v Section 471 read with 120-B of Indian Penal

193

Code: To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 (two) years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. default of payment of fine, to In

undergo (one)

further rigorous imprisonment for 1 month.

vi. Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code. To undergo rigorous imprisonment for

3(three) years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/. In default of payment of fine, to undergo (two)

further rigorous imprisonment for 2 months.

14. Harbhajan Singh. i) Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code: To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3

(three) years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for month. ii) Section 420 of Indian Penal Code: To undergo rigorous
194

1 (one)

imprisonment

for

(three)years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one) month. iii)Section 466 read with 120-B of Indian Penal Code. To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3

(three) years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo further month). iv. Section 468 read with 120-B of Indian Code. To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. of payment of fine, to In default further Penal rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one

undergo

rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one ) month. v Section 471 Code: To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 (two) years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. default of payment of fine, to In read with 120-Bof Indian Penal

undergo (one)

further rigorous imprisonment for 1 month.

195

vi. Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code. To . undergo rigorous imprisonment for

3(three) years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/In default of payment of fine, to undergo (two) further rigorous imprisonment for 2 months. 15. Surinder Kumar. i) Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code: To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3

(three) years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for month. ii) Section 420 of Indian Penal Code: To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 (three)years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one) month. iii)Section 466 read with 120-B of Indian Penal Code. To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 1 (one)

(three) years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-.

196

In default of payment of fine, to undergo further month). iv. Section 468 read with 120-B of Indian Code. To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. of payment of fine, to In default further Penal rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one

undergo

rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one ) month. v Section 471 Code: To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 (two) years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. default of payment of fine, to In read with 120-Bof Indian Penal

undergo (one)

further rigorous imprisonment for 1 month.

vi. Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code. To undergo rigorous imprisonment for

3(three) years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/. In default of payment of fine, to undergo (two)

further rigorous imprisonment for 2 months.

197

16. Ramesh Kumar. i) Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code: To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3

(three) years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for month. ii) Section 420 of Indian Penal Code: To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 (three)years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one) month. iii)Section 466 read with 120-B of Indian Penal Code. To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 1 (one)

(three) years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo further month). iv. Section 468 read with 120-B of Indian Code. To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default Penal rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one

198

of

payment

of

fine,

to

undergo

further

rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one ) month. v Section 471 Code: To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 (two) years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. default of payment of fine, to In read with 120-Bof Indian Penal

undergo (one)

further rigorous imprisonment for 1 month.

vi. Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code. To undergo rigorous imprisonment for

3(three) years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/. In default of payment of fine, to undergo (two)

further rigorous imprisonment for 2 months.

17. Bajir Lal. i) Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code: To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3

(three) years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one)

199

month. ii) Section 420 of Indian Penal Code: To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3

(three)years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one) month. iii)Section 466 read with 120-B of Indian Penal Code.

To

undergo

rigorous

imprisonment

for

(three) years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo further month). iv. Section 468 read with 120-B of Indian Code. To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. of payment of fine, to In default further Penal rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one

undergo

rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one ) month. v Section 471 Code: To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 (two) read with 120-Bof Indian Penal

200

years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. default of payment of fine, to

In

undergo (one)

further rigorous imprisonment for 1 month.

vi. Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code. To undergo rigorous imprisonment for

3(three) years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/. In default of payment of fine, to undergo (two)

further rigorous imprisonment for 2 months.

18. Jagat Pal. i) Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code: To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3

(three) years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for month. ii) Section 420 of Indian Penal Code: To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 1 (one)

(three)years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo

201

further rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one) month. iii)Section 466 read with 120-B of Indian Penal Code. To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3

(three) years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo further month). iv. Section 468 read with 120-B of Indian Code. To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. of payment of fine, to In default further Penal rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one

undergo

rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one ) month. v Section 471 Code: To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 (two) years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. default of payment of fine, to In read with 120-Bof Indian Penal

undergo (one)

further rigorous imprisonment for 1 month.

vi. Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 120-B of Indian Penal

202

Code. To undergo rigorous imprisonment for

3(three) years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/. In default of payment of fine, to undergo (two)

further rigorous imprisonment for 2 months.

19. Chander Bhan. i) Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code: To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3

(three) years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for month. ii) Section 420 of Indian Penal Code: To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 1 (one)

(three)years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one) month. iii)Section 466 read with 120-B of Indian Penal Code. To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3

(three) years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-.

203

In default of payment of fine, to undergo further month). iv. Section 468 read with 120-B of Indian Code. To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. of payment of fine, to In default further Penal rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one

undergo

rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one ) month. v Section 471 Code: To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 (two) years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. default of payment of fine, to In read with 120-B of Indian Penal

undergo (one)

further rigorous imprisonment for 1 month.

vi. Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code. To undergo rigorous imprisonment for

3(three) years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/. In default of payment of fine, to undergo (two)

further rigorous imprisonment for 2 months.

204

20. Ram Singh. i) Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code: To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3

(three) years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for month. ii) Section 420 of Indian Penal Code: To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 1 (one)

(three)years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one) month. III)Section 466 read with 120-B of Indian Penal Code. To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3

(three) years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo further month). iv. Section 468 read with 120-B of Indian Code. To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years Penal rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one

205

and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. of payment of fine, to

In default further

undergo

rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one ) month. v Section 471 Code: To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 (two) years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. default of payment of fine, to In read with 120-B of Indian Penal

undergo (one)

further rigorous imprisonment for 1 month.

vi. Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code. To undergo rigorous imprisonment for

3(three) years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/. In default of payment of fine, to undergo (two)

further rigorous imprisonment for 2 months.

5.

All

the The

sentences period already

shall undergone

run by

concurrently.

the convict in custody shall be set-off against the term awarded. A.P. Jain. Fine paid by all except by

All the un-exhibited documents be

206

returned

to

the

concerned

quarters

against

proper receipt. File be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced:4.8.2008.

(Jagdeep Jain) Special Judge, Chandigarh. and all the

This Judgment Contains 207 pages pages have been signed by me.

(Jagdeep Jain) Special Judge, Chandigarh.

207