Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 797 (PNJ)

Ram Kumar v. State Of Punjab

2007-04-03

H.S.BHALLA

body2007
Judgment H.S.Bhalla, J. 1. This order of mine shall dispose of two criminal appeals being Criminal Appeal No. 7-SB of 1995 and Criminal Appeal No. 53-SB of 1995 together as they arise out of the same impugned judgment dated 17.12.1994 passed by Special Judge, CBI, Punjab, Patiala. For the sake of convenience, the facts are extracted from Criminal Appeal No. 7-SB of 1995. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 17.12.1994 passed by Special Judge, CBI, Punjab, Patiala, vide which he convicted Ram Kumar, appellant under Sections 5(2) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1947 and 1988 Act") respectively. Both the appellants were also convicted under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. Appellant Ram Kumar was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2-1/2 years under Sections 5(2) and 13(2) of the Act and he was ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-; in default thereof, he was further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months. Both the appellants were further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years each under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and they were ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each; in default thereof, they were further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months each. The appellants were further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2-1/2 years each under Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code and they were ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- each; in default thereof, they were further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months each. The appellants were further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years each under Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code and they were ordered to pay fine of Rs. 300/- each; in default thereof, they were further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months each. 3. A synoptical resume of the prosecution case is as under : 4. 300/- each; in default thereof, they were further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months each. 3. A synoptical resume of the prosecution case is as under : 4. Appellant Ram Kumar, while posted as Parcel Clerk, Northern Railway, Ludhiana and Harbans Lal Pahwa (appellant in connected appeal No. 53-SB of 1995) while posted as Clearing Agent in the Parcel Office, Ludhiana in the year 1987-88 had entered into a criminal conspiracy and cheated the Railway Authorities to the tune of Rs. 23,000/- by preparing forged money receipts bearing No. 413923 dated 12.2.1987 for Rs. 1,750/-, No. 332861 dated 8.7.1987 for Rs. 2,640/-, No. 334082 dated 11.7.1987 for Rs. 2,800/-, No. 341616 dated 8.4.1988 for Rs. 9,500/- and No. 789342 dated 12.6.1988 for Rs. 6,400/-. The forged refund summaries dated 5.5.1987, 29.8.1987, 20.10.1987, 23.4.1987 and 11.10.1988 were prepared in regard to the said receipts. On that basis, both the appellants claimed refund of Rs. 23,090/- from the office of Railway Authorities, Ludhiana. As per the rules, all the goods/consignments booked by the Railway Authorities are required to be delivered at the concerned destination to the consignee on production of the railway receipts. In case of perishable consignments, the same are delivered even without production of the railway receipts. When the railway receipt and refund is received, the same is submitted to the railway authorities for refund of the amount which was got deposited. After the receipt of the said documents from the consignee, the parcel office prepares summary of refund wherein the particulars of the money receipts are mentioned. The said summary is required to be signed by the in charge of the parcel office. Thereafter, the summary along with money receipt is sent to the booking office for making refund of the amount to the consignee. 5. During investigation, it was found that appellant Ram Kumar, Parcel Clerk, while misusing his official status and in conspiracy with Harbans Lal Pahwa, Clearing Agent dishonestly and fraudulently prepared and submitted the forged and fabricated money receipts and memo refund lists to the booking office. Resultantly, both the appellants had caused loss to the railway authorities and obtained illegal benefit to the tune of Rs. 23,090/-. Resultantly, both the appellants had caused loss to the railway authorities and obtained illegal benefit to the tune of Rs. 23,090/-. It was further found that the numbers mentioned on the railway receipts as well as money receipts were bogus and, as such, no goods were delivered or received by the Parcel Office, Northern Railway, Ludhiana. On completion of the investigation, the appellants were challaned and sent up for trial. 6. Appellant Ram Kumar was charge sheeted under Sections 5(1)(d) read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, whereas, Harbans Lal Pahwa was charge sheeted under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution in order to prove its case has examined Anil Kumar (PW1), Surinder Kumar (PW2), Joginder Dass (PW3), Krishan Kumar Kuna (PW4), Jaimal Singh (PW5), Ram Saran (PW6), Surjit Singh (PW7), Chunni Lal (PW8), Rattan Singh (PW9), Subhash Chander (PW10), Babu Ram (PW11), Ganesh Din (PW12), Vinod Kumar (PW13), Prem Sagar (PW14), Pritam Singh (PW15), Tarlochan Singh (PW16), Shiv Kumar (PW17), Bhupinder Singh (PW18), Jagtar Singh (PW19), Chaman Lal (PW20), Mohinder Singh (PW21), Om Parkash (PW22), Sarwan Ram (PW23), Nand Lal (PW24), Dr. B.A. Vaid (PW25), Yash Pal (PW26), Gurdial Singh (PW27), P.K. Chaudhary (PW28) and Babu Ram (PW29) and closed its evidence. 7. The appellants in their statements recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stated that they were falsely implicated. Appellant Ram Kumar pleaded that on account of enmity with Mangat Ram, CPC, he was roped in the false case. They opted not to lead evidence in defence. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully. 8. Before laying my hands on the evidence put forward by the prosecution, it is necessary to find out the procedure, which was being followed by the Chief Booking Supervisor and others at the railway station. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully. 8. Before laying my hands on the evidence put forward by the prosecution, it is necessary to find out the procedure, which was being followed by the Chief Booking Supervisor and others at the railway station. The record clearly spells out that delivery of the goods is given to the consignee on the production of the railway receipt, but in the case of perishable goods, like, fruit and vegetables, if given to the consignee, on the deposit of the price of the goods by the consignee with the parcel office and the amount deposited is refunded after the receipt of the railway receipt of the consignee, in order to prove that, this procedure was being followed; number of witnesses have stepped into the witness box. Joginder Singh (PW-3), Chief Booking Supervisor, has disclosed that it was his duty to see that there is smooth working in the parcel office. In case the perishable goods are received at the railway station and the consignee is unable to produce the original railway receipt, the receipt is issued to him on the deposit of the price of the goods with the parcel office. This receipt is known as money receipt. When the original railway receipt is received and the consignee comes to the railway station along with the railway receipt for the refund of the amount, thereafter the amount is refunded to the consignee. In case sufficient funds are not available, refund voucher/memo is issued. Ram Saran (PW-6), Chief Booking Supervisor, has deposed that in case of perishable goods before the railway receipt is received, the goods are delivered to the consignee on the deposit of the costs of the goods and the said amount is refunded back to the concerned party after the railway receipt is received. Surjit Singh (PW-7), Chief Parcel Supervisor and Jagtar Singh (PW-19), who work as agents dealing in the fruit and vegetables at the Railway Station, Ludhiana, deposed regarding the above mentioned procedure. The statements of these witnesses clearly spell out, as to how the necessity arises for the issue of money receipt regarding the delivery of perishable goods and what procedure was being followed for the refund of the amount deposited. 9. The statements of these witnesses clearly spell out, as to how the necessity arises for the issue of money receipt regarding the delivery of perishable goods and what procedure was being followed for the refund of the amount deposited. 9. The entire case of the prosecution revolves around the bogus money receipts and as per the allegations of the prosecution, bogus money receipts were prepared by the accused and on the basis of these receipts, bogus refund summaries were prepared and refunds were obtained fraudulently. Anil Kumar (PW-1) has pointed out that in the instant case, there was a difference of Rs. 14,400/-, one for Rs. 4900/- and the other for Rs. 9400/- and the same were shown in the records by the Accounts Officer. He further deposed that on the receipt of the T.A.11, CPS, Ludhiana, matter was referred to the Senior Divisional Commercial Officer, Ferozepur and the inquiry was made by him on 26.10.1988, who submitted his report on 27.12.1988. The statement of this witness shows that during the audit, it was found that there was a difference of Rs. 14,400/- and on the basis of the audit, fraud came to light. 10. According to the case of the prosecution, money receipts No. 413923 dated 12.2.1987 for Rs. 1750/- and No. 332861 dated 8.7.1988 for Rs. 2640/-; No. 334032 dated 11.7.1987 for Rs. 2600/-;, No. 341616 dated 8.4.1988 for Rs. 9500/- and No. 789342 dated 12.6.1988 for Rs. 6400/- were prepared fraudulently by the accused and on the basis of the same, refunds were obtained on account of false refund summaries. 11. Surjit Singh (PW-7) was the Chief Parcel Supervisor at that time, who has categorically deposed that money receipts, Ex. PW7/1 to Ex. PW7/5 are bogus money receipts. In the relevant record, there is no entry regarding the said receipts. He further explained that entries are made in the delivery register, which is Ex. PW-7/6, but these receipts have not been mentioned in that register, nor there is any entry in this regard. He has further clarified that there is no entry in the delivery register and according to the said register, goods mentioned in the registers, Ex. PW-7/8 and Ex. PW-7/9 also, there is no entry regarding the receipt of the goods. As regards money receipts mentioned above, in the cash memo book, Ex. PW-7/10 to Ex. He has further clarified that there is no entry in the delivery register and according to the said register, goods mentioned in the registers, Ex. PW-7/8 and Ex. PW-7/9 also, there is no entry regarding the receipt of the goods. As regards money receipts mentioned above, in the cash memo book, Ex. PW-7/10 to Ex. PW-7/12 also, there is no entry regarding the deposit of cost money. While advancing the case of the prosecution, it clearly proves on record that the goods mentioned in the money receipts, were never received at the railway station, nor any amount was received through the railway authorities. The record maintained with the railway authorities further spells out that the receipts are bogus. 12. Vinod Kumar (PW-13) has testified that he has been working with accused Ram Kumar and he can identify his writing. The refund memo register, Ex. PW- 13/1 appears to be in the hand of Ram Kumar accused and the money receipt also appears to be in the hand of accused Ram Kumar. Mohinder Singh (PW-21), Parcel Clerk, has deposed that accused Ram Kumar is known to him and he was posted as a railway employee and Harbans Lal Pahwa was an agent at the railway station, Ludhiana. He has been working with Ram Kumar and he can identify his hand writing. He has categorically deposed that receipt, Ex. PW21/1 is in the hand of accused Ram Kumar. The refund memo, Ex. PW21/2 is again in the hand of the accused Harbans Lal Pahwa. Om Parkash (PW-22) has also deposed in a similar fashion and he has also identified the handwriting and signatures of Ram Kumar accused on receipt Ex. PW-7/1. Sarwan Ram (PW-23) has also identified the handwriting of accused Ram Kumar on the money receipts in question as also on the refund memo. Nand Lal (PW-24) has stated that he knew accused Ram Kumar and Harbans Lal and he can identify the writing of accused Ram Kumar. He has also identified the hand writings on money receipt, Ex. PW-7/4. All these receipts are fully connected with accused Ram Kumar. Yash Pal (PW-26), has disclosed that he remained posted as a Head Booking Clerk, Railway Station, Ludhiana, from 1981 to 1990. On 20.10.1987 he was on cash duty and he made the payment of Rs. 6,720/- on the basis of refund memo list, Ex. PW-7/4. All these receipts are fully connected with accused Ram Kumar. Yash Pal (PW-26), has disclosed that he remained posted as a Head Booking Clerk, Railway Station, Ludhiana, from 1981 to 1990. On 20.10.1987 he was on cash duty and he made the payment of Rs. 6,720/- on the basis of refund memo list, Ex. PW21/1, and the money receipt No. 334082 and other money receipts. He has categorically deposed that the payment was made to accused Harbans Lal and Ram Kumar, who were present in the trial Court and vouchers were also brought by them. Statements of these witnesses clearly spell out that according to him, he made the payment to accused Harbans Lal and Ram Kumar regarding refund memo list Ex. PW-21/2 and both the accused received the refund of the said amount from the parcel Office. Nand Lal (PW-24) has also disclosed that money receipt, Ex. PW-7/4 is in the hand of accused Ram Kumar and the entire evidence proves on record that the money receipts were bogus and on the basis of these bogus receipts, the refund was obtained by the present accused persons. In fact, the statements of these witnesses further spell out that preparation of bogus money receipt and on the basis of these receipts, receipt of payment is also proved by the accused persons. Moreover, specimen signatures and hand writings of accused Harbans Lal were taken in the presence of Tarlochan Singh (PW-16) and Babu Ram (PW-29). P.K. Chaudhary (PW-28), has deposed that specimen signatures of accused Harbans Lal were taken during the investigation and the same were sent to the GEQD and report was received. 13. Dr. B.A. Vaid (PW-25) has stated that the disputed documents and the specimen signatures of Harbans Lal were received by him and after examination of the same, he submitted his report, Ex. PW-25/172 and reasons for his opinion were given in Ex. PW-25/173. As per his opinion, Ex. PW-25/172, the writings Q-11, Q-13, Q-28, Q-36, Q-28 and Q-80 are in the hand of accused Harbans Lal. The writing Q 50 is on the back of refund summary Ex. PW-23/1 regarding the receipt of the amount of Rs. 11,440/-. As per the opinion of the document experts, Q-28 is the writing on the back of the money receipt Ex. PW-25/172, the writings Q-11, Q-13, Q-28, Q-36, Q-28 and Q-80 are in the hand of accused Harbans Lal. The writing Q 50 is on the back of refund summary Ex. PW-23/1 regarding the receipt of the amount of Rs. 11,440/-. As per the opinion of the document experts, Q-28 is the writing on the back of the money receipt Ex. PW-7/1 and the same is in the hand of accused Harbans Lal and according to the said writing as to the refund of Rs. 1750/- is in the hand of accused Harbans Lal. According to the statement of this expert witness, refund summary, which is Ex. PW-12/2, was prepared by accused Harbans Lal. The evidence clearly spells out that on the basis of bogus receipts and refund summaries, refunds were obtained by accused Ram Kumar and Harbans Lal in connivance with each other. 14. K.K. Kundra (PW-4) has disclosed that on 11.10.1988 he made the payment of Rs. 11440/- on the basis of parcel vouchers received from the parcel office and the payment was made by him to accused Harbans Lal, who was present before the trial Court and he made the entry in the cash book. He further disclosed that the vouchers registers bear the signatures of Harbans Lal in token of receipt of the amount. Babu Ram (PW-11) has also deposed regarding the payment of Rs. 14,400/- by K.K. Kundra (PW-12). The sanction to prosecute accused Ram Kumar is proved through the mouth of Gurdial Singh (PW-27), who has disclosed that sanction, Ex. PW-27/1, bears his signatures and sanction was given by him after going through the record, which was placed before him. He is the Punishing Authority of the accused. Number of witnesses have proved beyond doubt that accused were working as parcel clerk at the relevant time and being public servant, the sanction, which was required, was duly proved vide Ex. PW27/1. All this clearly spells out that accused Ram Kumar, being a public servant, misconducted himself in the discharge of his official duties. Some of the period is covered by the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and some period is covered by the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Both the accused committed the offence in conspiracy with each other. PW27/1. All this clearly spells out that accused Ram Kumar, being a public servant, misconducted himself in the discharge of his official duties. Some of the period is covered by the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and some period is covered by the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Both the accused committed the offence in conspiracy with each other. The department was cheated by obtaining refund by the present accused-appellant on the basis of bogus record and they prepared the forged documents for the purpose of cheating and in order to obtain refund of money, in such like circumstances, the question of any leniency does not arise and there is nothing to be set right and in the final analysis, both the appeals, being Criminal Appeal No. 7-SB of 1995 filed by appellant Ram Kumar and Criminal Appeal No. 53-SB of 1995 filed by Harbans Lal are liable to be dismissed. 15. Before I part with this judgment of mine, I would like to observe and clarify that both the accused have been acquitted by the learned Special Judge, CBI, Punjab under section 471 of the Indian Penal Code while passing the judgment of conviction dated 17.12.1994, but inadvertently, at the time of conclusion of the judgment, they were convicted under Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of two years was passed against them. The learned Special Judge has categorically observed in his order dated 17.12.1994, which runs as under :- " .......There is not sufficient evidence regarding the offence under Section 471 IPC. The act of accused does not fall under section 471 IPC, as such the accused are acquitted of that charge...." 16. On the point of quantum of sentence, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has prayed that at the time of passing of the judgment in the year 1994 by the Special Judge, accused Ram Kumar was aged about 40 years, whereas accused Harbans Lal was aged about 48 years. By now both the appellants must have crossed over the age of 53 and 61 years respectively. Since the registration of the case against the accused, they are facing mental stress and on account of the pendency of the appeal before this Court for the last 13 years, a sword of conviction is hanging on their heads. Learned counsel has prayed for taking a lenient view against the appellants. 17. Since the registration of the case against the accused, they are facing mental stress and on account of the pendency of the appeal before this Court for the last 13 years, a sword of conviction is hanging on their heads. Learned counsel has prayed for taking a lenient view against the appellants. 17. I have considered the submissions raised by the learned defence counsel and taking a lenient view, I order that conviction against both the appellants, namely, Ram Kumar and Harbans Lal shall be maintained, but keeping in view their age factor coupled with other family circumstances, the period of imprisonment recorded against appellant Ram Kumar under Sections 5(2) of the 1947 Act; 13 (2) of the 1988 Act; 468 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code on all the counts, is reduced to one year. Likewise, the period of imprisonment of 2-1/2 years recorded against appellant Harbans Lal under Section 468 IPC and 02 years under Section 420 of the IPC respectively is reduced to one year. The fine imposed against both the appellants on all the counts by the learned Special Judge shall remain the same. Sentences awarded to both the appellants under the various sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Indian Penal Code, as referred to above, shall run concurrently. Both the appellants, namely, Ram Kumar and Harbans Lal, who are on bail, are directed to be taken into custody to serve out the period of sentence of one year each awarded to them by this Court. However, it is made clear that the period of sentence, if any, already undergone by them while remaining in custody, shall be set off out of the sentence awarded by this Court. Both the appeals, being Criminal Appeal No. 7-SB of 1995 filed by appellant Ram Kumar and Criminal Appeal No. 53-SB of 1995 filed by Harbans Lal separately against the same very judgment passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI, Patiala, are dismissed in part in the manner indicated above.