Malkhan And Others vs State Of U.P. And Another
2019 Latest Caselaw 5004 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

AFR
 
Court No. 1
 
Judgment reserved on 25.4.2019
 
Judgment delivered on 24.5.2019
 
Criminal Revision No. 911 of 2006.
 
Yadram Sagar & others vs. State of U.P. & another.
 
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha, J.

1. The present revision has been filed by the revisionists against the judgment and order dated 8.2.2006 passed by Special Judge, C.B.I., Prevention of Corruption Act U.P. East/Additional Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad in Criminal Appeal No. 62 of 2004 maintaining the conviction and sentence under section 120-B, 420 I.P.C. and partly allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence under section 420 read with 120-B I.P.C. arising out of the judgment and order dated 29.7.2004 passed by Special Judicial Magistrate C.B.I., Ghaziabad convicting the revisionists under section 120-B, 420 I.P.C. and Section 420 read with section 109 I.P.C. and sentencing the revisionists for three months R.I. and fine of Rs. 1,000/- under section 120-B I.P.C. and six months R.I. and fine of Rs. 2,000/- under section 420 I.P.C. and sentencing them six months and fine of Rs. 2,000/- under section 420 I.P.C. read with Section 109 I.P.C. and all the sentences shall run concurrently.

2. The present revision filed by the revisionists was finally heard and decided by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 21.5.2013 and it appears that against the said order, the revisionist Vijendra Pal Singh preferred S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 8348 of 2014 and the Apex Court remanded the matter to be reheard vide order dated 27th October, 2014, hence in pursuance of the same, the matter is being reheard by this Court and decided after hearing learned counsel for the parties.

3. The present criminal revision has been filed by seven revisionists out of which revisionist no. 1 Yadram Sagar has died, hence the revision on his behalf has been ordered to be abated by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 3.2.2009 on an application, i.e. Abatement Application No. 15177 of 2008. The revisionist nos. 2, 3 and 5, namely, Malkhan, Mishree Lal Pippal and Bahori Singh died during the pendency of revision and in view of the report of the C.J.M. Aligarh the revision on their has become infructuous. Thus the present revision survives on behalf of revisionist no. 4 Moti Singh, revisionist no. 6 Vijendra Pal Singh @ V.P. Singh and revisionist no. 7 Yogendra Pal Singh. So far as revisionist no. 4 Moti Singh and revisionist no. 7 Yogendra Pal Singh are concerned, they have already served out the sentence of six months for the offence in question awarded by the court below. Revisionist no. 7 Yogendra Pal Singh in spite of notice being sent to him and being cautious that the present revision is pending against him, did not turn up to contest the same on merit. Thus the Court proceed to hear the revision on behalf of revisionist nos. 4, 6 and 7.

4. The prosecution case in brief is that an information was received by the Superintendent C.B.I./S.P.E. Dehradun on 16.8.1985 on the basis of which an F.I.R. was registered as case crime no. RC 18/85 Dehradun against accused Yadram Sagar, Malkhan Singh, Mishree Lal Pippal, Moti Singh Rajpoot, Bahori Sigh, Shivcharan Singh, R.D. Joshi, Banke Lal Srivastava and Indu Travels, Aligarh and investigation was proceeded. Accused Yadram Sagar, Malkhan Singh, Mishree Lal Pippal, Moti Singh Rapoot, B.B.L. Mishra, Bahori Singh, Shiv Charan Singh were posted as Assistant in the Head Post Office, Aligarh and one Revadhar Joshi was posted as Dy. Post Master in the Head Post Office, Aligarh. The said accused persons being the employees of Central Government were entitled for L.T.C. for them along with their family members. The said L.T.C. can be availed by them once in four years. With a criminal conspiracy, the aforesaid accused persons, namely, Yadram Sagar, Malkhan Singh, Mishree Lal Pippal, Moti Singh Rajpoot, B.B.L. Mishra, Bahori Singh, Shiv Charan Singh with the assistance of co-accused Banke Lal Srivastava, Yogendra Pal Singh, Vijendra Pal Singh and others in November-December, 1984 have taken a huge amount from the postal department which is a department of Central Government towards L.T.C. without doing the actual journey. In the said conspiracy, all the accused persons made an application for L.T.C. and separately received the amount for traveling from Aligarh to Kanya Kumari for themselves and for their family members. The aforesaid accused persons have presented the bills of L.T.C. before the officials of postal department in a deceitful manner claiming that they and their family members travelled from Aligarh to Kanya Kumari by arranging a bus from M/s Indu Travels, Aligarh. The said accused persons with a dishonest intention to cheat the department has submitted wrong bills for claiming the benefit of L.T.C. and the accused Yogendra Pal Singh, who is the proprietor of M/s Indu Travels, Aligarh issued receipts which he got prepared along with accused Vijendra Pal Singh in a deceitful manner for travelling of the said accused from Aligarh to Kanyakumari and also of returned journey. For the recovery claim made by eight accused persons by presenting wrong bills, they got advance money sanctioned and further the balance payment was also made to them. It was further stated that the accused Yadram Sagar along with seven other persons is said to have travelled between 1.1.1985 to 16.1.1985 by Bus No. URJ 9192 and have got advance amount of Rs. 6,000/- on 21.12.1984 and L.T.C. bill dated 23.3.1985 for Rs. 7,800/- was also presented and Rs. 7,500/- was sanctioned on 8.4.1985 and the balance of Rs. 1500/- was paid to him on 9.4.1985. Similarly other accused Malkhan Singh, B.B.L. Mishra, R.D. Joshi, Mishree Lal Peepal, Bahuri Singh, Shiv Charan Singh and Moti Singh Rajpoot have received the advance amount as well as the balance payment for respective period on which they stated to have travelled from Aligarh to Kanyakumari. The accused Moti Singh Rajpoot is said to have travelled between 1.1.1985 to 16.1.1985 by Bus No. URB 4935 along with six adults and three minor persons and he received Rs. 7500/- towards advance amount of L.T.C. on 17.11.1984 and Rs. 9750/-was sanctioned to him on 29.3.1985 out of which Rs. 9375/- was sanctioned to him on 21.4.1985 and Rs. 1875/- was paid to him towards balance amount on 11.4.1985. The aforesaid accused persons neither travelled through Bus No. URB 4935 and Bus No. URJ 9192 from Aligarh to Kanya Kumari nor the said bus had gone to Kanya Kumari between aforesaid dates as claimed by the accused persons in their L.T.C. bills. The accused Vijendra Pal Singh prepared false bills of M/s Indu Travels, Aligarh which was got signed by accused Yogendra Pal Singh with the help of accused Banke Lal Srivastava. It was further stated that the accused Banke Lal Srivastava, who was the master mind of the crime in question got prepared the said accused the eight accused persons for the said deceitful act and thereafter presented the wrong claim. The accused Yogendra Pal Singh and Vijendra Pal Singh got issued wrong bills of bus and also got a wrong permit for the bus, issued from the office of R.T.O., Aligarh in a deceitful manner. The permit No. 8 and 651 were prepared by accused Banke Lal Srivastava in his handwriting and the L.T.C. was also prepared and signed by him and on the basis of false documents of Bus No. URB 4935 and URJ 9192 said to have been shown stopping at various places and dishonestly cheat the authorities. Thus, by the said act the accused in a deceitful manner cheated the postal department causing wrongful loss to the department to the tune of Rs. 61875/- on fictitious bills and received the said amount. The investigation of the case was carried out and after investigation on 22.9.1986 charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons, namely, Yadram Sagar, Malkhan, Mishree Lal Peppal, Moti Singh Rajpoot, B.B.L. Mishra, Bahuri Singh, Revadhar Joshi, Bankelal Srivastava, Yogendra Pal Singh and Vijendra Pal Singh for the offence under sections 120-B, 420 I.P.C. and 109 read with section 420 I.P.C. before the Court.

5. The accused R.D. Joshi, Shiv Charan Singh and B.B.L. Mishra died during the pendency of the trial, hence their trial was ordered to be abated on 22.1.1992, 22.6.1998 and 22.8.2003.

6. Charges were framed against accused Yadram Sagar, Malkhan Singh, Mishree Lal Peepal, Bahuri Singh, Revadhar Joshi, Banke Lal Srivastva, Yogendra Pal Singh and Vijendra Pal Singh.

7. The C.B.I. in support of its case examined 31 prosecution witnesses, P.W. Ram Saran Lal, P.W. 2, B.K. Gadgar, P.W. 3 T.P. Sharma, P.W. 4 Amochand Sharma, P.W. 5 Narain Singh, P.W. 6 Prakash Narain Sharma, P.W. 7 Vinod Kumar, P.W. 8 Saroj Kumari, P.W. 9 Santosh Kumar Raghav, P.W. 10 C.S. Rana, P.W. 11 Rajendra Prasad Sharma, P.W. 12 Rajbeer Singh, P.W. 13 Hariom Das, P.W. 14 Phool Singh, P.W. 15 Rajendra Singh, P.W. 16 Jameel Ahmad, P.W. 17 Suresh Chandra, P.W. 18 R.N. Sharma, P.W. 19 B.A. Patel, P.W. 20 Chitrake Gauda, P.W. 21 M. Krishnapa, P.W. 22 Snehlata, P.W. 23 Sudha Sharma, P.W. 24 Gyan Prakash Dubey, P.W. 25 Kishan Swaroop Sharma, P.W. 26 Munshi Lal, P.W. 27 Dharmanand Joshi, P.W. 28 Radheyshyam Sharma, P.W. 29 Prithviraj Sachdeva, P.W. 30 Amar Singh, P.W. 31 Sajid Ali and proved 318 documents.

8. The statements of the accused were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. Accused Yadram Sagar, Malkhan Singh, Mishree Lal Peepal, Moti Singh Rajpoot, Bahuri Singh in their statements under section 313 Cr.P.C. have stated that they had travelled on L.T.C. and have submitted their L.T.C. bills for the same for which they got payment in accordance with the Rules and the witnesses because of enmity are falsely deposing against them.

9. In defence, the accused examined D.W. 1 Praveen Kumar Sharma, who has stated that Permit No. 651 was issued towards Bus No. URB 4935 and Permit No. 8 was issued to Bus No. URJ 9192.

10. As the revisionist Yadram Sagar, Malkhan Singh, Mishree Lal Peepal and Bahuri Singh, who were posted as Assistant in the postal department, have died during the pendency of the present revision, the Court proceeds to take into account the allegation which have been levelled against revisionist no. 4 Moti Singh Rajpoot, who was also an Assistant in the postal department and had taken the benefit of L.T.C. and has received the amount for travelling from Aligarh to Kanya Kumari and the evidence which were led against him along with accused Vijendra Pal Sigh @ V.P. Singh Account Officer, telephone department, Aligarh for the purpose of their conviction and sentence by the lower appellate Court. It is note worthy to mentioned here that so far as revisionist no. 4 Moti Singh Rajpport is concerned he has already served out the sentence awarded to him by the trial court and he has been represented by his counsel Sri Vipin Kumar, who had tried to assail the conviction and sentence by the trial court as well as by the lower appellate Court in the present revision had gone to demonstrate from the findings recorded by the two courts for his conviction and sentence for the sake of brevity, the Court proceed to analysis the evidence against revisionist no. 6 Moti Singh Rajpoot and revisionist no. 7 Vijendra Pal Singh @ V.P. Singh.

11. P.W. 1, 3 and 4 had deposed nothing against revisionist no. 6 Moti Singh Rajpoot as they have deposed against other accused persons.

12. P.W. 2 V.K. Gadgar has deposed before the trial court that in the year 1985-86 he was posted as Dy. Post Master at post office, Aligarh. He stated that after seeing the 'A' roll dated 11.4.1985 at serial no. 21 by which the revisionist no. 6 Moti Singh Rajpoot was made payment of Rs. 1875/- towards L.T.C. The said 'A' roll was prepared by Ram Saran Lal the then clerk and he was acquainted with his hand writing and signature and seen him working in the department. He has also signed the same in green ink and the same also bears the signature of Moti Singh against whom he also has seen working. He has proved the said 'A' roll as Ex. Ka-1 and the signature on the same of Moti Singh as Ex. Ka-5/1.

13. P.W. 5 Narain Singh has deposed before the trial court that on 3.8.1984 he was posted in the head post office, Aligarh as Assistant Cashier till May, 1986. The salary register being Ledger No. SB116/117 by which the accused/revisionist no. 6 Moti Singh Rajpoot for year 1982-85 advanced money for L.T.C. to the tune of Rs. 7500/- was paid which was received by Moti Singh Rajpoot and he had signed the same which has been mentioned and he is known to him and has proved the salary ledger as Ex. Ka-12 and the signature of the accused Moti Singh Rajpoot on the same is marked as (Ex. Ka-12/1. The salary register ledger no. SB 75 by which the balance amount of Rs. 1875 was paid to Moti Singh Rajpoot was also received by him under his signature.

14. P.W. 6 Prakash Narain has stated that on Ex. Ka-12 he made his signature on the line where the post master has signed which he had identified. According to the said salary register/ledger accused Moti Singh Rajpoot was given an advanced for L.T.C. to the tune of Rs. 7500/-. The revisionist Moti Singh Rajpoot and other accused persons have not cross examined P.W. 1 Ram Saran Lal, P.W. 2 V.K. Gadgar, P.W. 3, T.P. Sharma, P.W. 4 Amodchand Sharma, P.W. 5 Narain Singh, P.W. 6 Prakash Narain Sharma, who have deposed that the revisionists and the other accused persons have received L.T.C. amount.

15. P.W. 12 Rajbeer Singh has stated before the trial court that by bill no. A 17641 dated 4.1.1985, 115 litres. diesel was sold by him to Bus No. URB 4935. He stated that he had issued the said receipt after seeing the registration number of the said vehicle in his hand writing and signature. He proved the same as Ext. Ka-23. The witness after seeing receipt no. A 17663 dated 7.1.1985 and A16794 dated 13.1.198 has stated that he has sold diesel to vehicle no. URB 4935 which is in his hand writing and signature and proved as Exts. 24 and 25. He stated that he had issued the said receipt after seeing the vehicle number.

16. In his cross examination, he has stated that the vehicle for which he had issued the receipt, he cannot tell whether the same was a truck or a bus. The receipt which he has proved as Exts. 23, 24, 25, he had issued the same to the vehicles which had come for taking diesel. The said witness was produced by the C.B.I. for proving the allegation that bus No. URB 4935 from 1.1.1985 to 16.1.1985 and URJ No. 9192 from 26.1.1985 to 11.2.1985 did not took the diesel for its journey and nor the accused had traveled on the said bus between the said dates.

17. P.W. 13 Hari Om Das has stated that he along with Veer Singh is the owner of Bus No. URB 3935 and the said bus did not go to Kanya Kumari from January to February, 1985 nor they had taken any permit of the same made from the competent authority.

18. In his cross examination, he has admitted that in those days, there was a Union and probably Ramdas Sharma was the Manager and whole-sole of the said Union. Bhudev Sharma was his son. For seeking a permit, the Manager did not used to apply. The witness has stated that he himself used to go for the same. He denied that his bus had gone to Kanya Kumari.

19. P.W. 14 Phool Singh in his statement before the trial court has stated that he was driver of Bus No. URB 4935 the owner of which were Veer Singh and Hari Om Das, who belong to village Jattari and the conductor of the bus was Rajendra Singh. The said bus did not go to Kanya Kumari in January 1985. The said bus used to ply on Aligarh to Jewar route.

20. In his cross examination, he admitted that when the bus used to ply then its pay bill was not prepared and only details of the same were noted in the dairy. The details of boarding and alighting of the passengers were also not mentioned in the dairy. After rounding on the route, the same was written in the dairy in the evening. There is no signature of his on the said dairy. The same is maintained by the Conductor and when Conductor was not there, he writes the same. He further stated that if the bus goes out of station then its permit is issued. He is not aware that if the bus does not goes to its destination then its permit is to be canceled. He did not remember whether in January-February, 1985 he was on leave or not. In Union there is a Time Keeper, who keeps the record of moving of the bus. No Officer of C.B.I. has recorded his statement and his bus did not go to Kanya Kumari.

21. P.W. 15 Rajendra Singh has deposed before the trial court that he was Conductor of Bus No. URB 4935 and its driver was Phool Singh and owner of the said bus were Hari Om Das and Veer Singh and after seeing the Parcha dated 20/21.1.1985 he has stated that it was written by him and the said parcha is of income and expenditure. From the said parcha it is apparent that on which route the bus is being plied and the same has been proved as Ex. 26. He has proved Parch Nos. 63, 61, 60, 58, 57, 55, 54, 52, 51, 49, 48, 46, 45, 43, 42 which he stated to be in his hand writing and signature and proved the same as Exts. 27-41. He proved Parcha No. 84 to be in his hand writing and proved the same as Ex. 42. He stated that in January, 1985 nor at any point of time, the said bus had gone to Kanya Kumari. The said bus used to ply between Aligarh to Jewar route.

22. In his cross examination, he has stated that as soon as he took the bus, the time keeper used to note down the time and number of the bus. He admitted that none of the parcha bears his signature. The said bus is 57 seater and in one round, the said bus used to earn Rs. 150-200. He further stated that he cannot tell that in January-Febraury, 1985 he was on leave or not.

23. P.W. 16 Jameel Ahmad has deposed that he was Conductor of Bus No. URJ 9192. He also deposed that in January-February, 1985, the said bus used to ply on Aligarh-Jewar route and did not go to Kanya Kumari. The driver of the said bus was Jaswant Singh. The said bus used to go in marriage parties also. He has also proved Parcha Nos. 42-51 after seeing the same in his hand writing. The said Parcha were marked as Exts. Ka-43 to 51. He admitted in his cross examination that the said Parcha did not bear his signature. He stated that in January, 1985, the fare of the bus from Aligarh to Jewar was Rs. 3/- and the capacity of the said bus is 55 seater.

24. P.W. 17 Suresh Chandra has deposed before the trial court that in the year1984 he had purchased Bus No. URJ 9192. It was 55 seater bus and the driver of the said bus was Jaswant Singh and Jameel Ahmad was the Conductor. The said bus used to ply on Aligarh to Jewar route. The said bus in January-February, 1985 did not go to Kanya Kumari. He stated that he did not know Yogendra Pal-proprietor M/s. Indu Travels, Nai Basti, Aligarh. He had not taken any permit in the name of the said bus for going from Aligarh to Kanya Kumari and his bus never went from Aligarh to Kanya Kumari. After seeing permit No. 3/90/33 and Card No. 3/90/34 and Permit No. 3/90/35, 3/90/36, 3/90/37, 3/90/37, 3/90/38, 3/90/39 and 3/90/40 he has stated that the said permits were from Aligarh Rajghat to Narora Aligarh and Delhi Aligarh to Vasundhara Aligarh to Abhaypura for precautionary measure he got the issued the same from the Office of RTO, Aligarh as his bus had gone to the aforesaid place. After seeing the dairy of URJ 9192, the witness has stated that the said dairy is in his and his brother's hand writing. In the said dairy, the place where the bus had gone and its expenditure have been noted. The said dairy is of the year 1985 in which the details in datawise has been mentioned. The said dairy has been proved as Ex. 52. In his cross examination he has admitted that the C.B.I. had taken the said dairy and the documents in the year 1985. The documents were sealed.

25. P.W. 7 Smt. Vindo Kumari, P.W. 8 Saroj Kumari, P.W. 9 Santosh Kumar Raghav, P.W. 10 B.S. Rana, P.W. 11 Rajendra Prasad, P.W. 22 Snehlata, P.W. 23 Sudha Sharma, who are the teachers, Principals and Assistant teachers of the school where the children of the accused persons used to study and they have stated that on the dates on which the accused persons have stated to have gone on LTC their children were found to be present in the school.

26. P.W. 24 Gyan Prakash Dubey, who was the Principal of Janta Inter College has stated that he has been the Principal of the said college since 1972. He after seeing Register No. 60 stated that it is the register of his college of Class X-A and it is attendance register as well as fee register which is of the year 1984-85. He stated that the said register was prepared by one Ram Babu Sharma, who was the class teacher of class X-A and he had expired. The said register was maintained by him. He stated that he is aware of with the signature and hand writing of Ram Babu Sharma and he has proved the same as Ext. 75. According to the said register Km. Rohit daughter of Moti Singh was stated to be absent from 1.1.1985 to 16.1.1985 but in the said register in place of (अ) it has been mentioned as (उ), who has done the same he is not aware. The attendance in the month of January is in the hand writing of Sri Ram Babu Sharma which has been proved as Ex. Ka-76. Similarly at Serial No. 11, in the month of February, 1985 the presence has been mentioned and from 1st February 1985 to 13th February, 1985 in place of (उ), (अ) has been made. (उ) means present whereas (अ) means absent. The attendance of the month of February, 1985, the same has been mentioned in the writing of Ram Babu Sharma which has been marked as Ext. 77 and in place of (उ), (अ) has been made, who has made the same he is not aware. The witness after seeing the register no. 59 which was attendance and fee register of Janta Inter College of Class-VII A of the year 1984-85, has stated that at Serial No. 38, S.R. No. 2824 Name Singh son of Moti Singh was student of Class VII A in the year 1984-85. The said Register is maintained by Shanker Lal Sharma in his hand writing and signature. The witness has stated that Shanker Lal Sharma is working under him and he is conversant with his signature and writing. The said register has been marked as Ext. 78. In the said register marking on the pages is in the hand writing of Shanker Lal Sharma on which the information with respect to student is given and the same has been given as Ext. 79 and similarly in the month of January, 1985, the attendance has been marked in his hand writing which has been marked as Ext. 80 on which at serial no. 41 SR. No. 2824 with respect to the student Name Singh son of Moti Singh. The said attendance has been shown from 1.1.1985 to 16.1.1985 where in place of (उ), (अ) has been made and who has made the same he is not aware.

27. P.W. 25, 26, 28, namely, Kishan Swaroop Sharma, Munshi Lal and Radhey Shyam Sharma are the prosecution witness, who have given evidence with respect to the wards of other accused persons and not of revisionist Moti Singh.

28. P.W. 30 Amar Singh has deposed before the trial court that in the year 1988, he was posted as Assistant Examiner in the office of JIQD, Calcutta. He has done M.Sc. with Chemistry. He is hand writing expert having experience of 25 years and has taken training in this regard in LQD Shimla. During his service he had conduced the examination of various documents and has given his opinion about the same. The documents relating to the present case was received by him on 9.5.1988 at his office at Calcutta from S.P. C.B.I., Dehradun which he had brought in the Court and has submitted the same and endorsement in red pen has been made by Sri Santosh Singh Assistant Public Analyst and he is conversant with his hand writing and signature as he has worked with him. In pursuance of the said order, the same was given to him for examination and he has proved the same as Ext. 168 and for his convenience, the disputed document has been marked as Q1 to Q04 and the simple document has been marked as S 1 to S 40 which were admitted A 1 to A 76 and on each of the document there is seal of his Office and he has examined the said documents in his lab and he has used the scientific instruments for the same and he has prepared the said report which are marked as Ex. 22 Ka/1, 22 Ka/2, 22 Ka/3 and 22 Ka/4 and the same are in his hand writing as well as of Santosh Singh Public Analyst and he has also independently examined the said documents and had been agreed to the opinion given by the said witness. The said opinion has been marked as Ext. 169 and 170. The signature of Santosh Singh Ext. 171. The report was also sent by paper no. 22 Ka/1 to S.P. C.B.I. Dehradun which bears the signature of Public Analyst and the forwarding letter has been marked as Ext. 172 and he has submitted his report with respect to each of the persons.

29. So far as sample document S91 to S100 are concerned the same is related to revisionist no. 7 Yogendra Pal Singh. It has been stated that the said person has written the disputed documents, i.e., Q 84, Q 122, Q 158, Q 160, Q 179. The sample document S 101 to S 121 and the Admitted documents A 53 to A76 isrelated to the revisionist Vijendra Pal Singh. The said person had written the disputed document Q 161 to Q 178 and Q 180 to Q 184.

30. In his cross examination, the said witness has admitted that after a person carefully writes anything in a particular form then resemblance come but on examination reality can be deducted.

31. P.W. 27 Dharmanand Joshi stated before the trial court that he was posted as Vigilance Officer at PMG, Lucknow in the year 1984-85. He had done the verification of L.T.C. claim of the employees of the Post Office, Aligarh. After seeing Paper No. 25, 26, 27, 28, he stated that the same were written by Moti Singh Rajpoot, B.B.L. Mishra, Bahrauni Singh and Shiv Charan Singh and had voluntarily given their statement without any influence and pressure in his presence and he has made an endorsement on the said statements and also signed the same. The said statements have been proved and marked as Exts. Ka-84 to 87.

32. In his cross examination, the witness admitted that the said statement was written by him at Aligarh. He had not asked the employees to give statements in writing and they have given the same in writing on their own free will.

33. P.W. 20 Chitra Gaud had deposed before the trial court that he was posed as R.T.O. Jai Nagar from June 1985 to 1990. According to their record which is maintained by the Inspector of Check post, Bus No. URB 4935 and URJ 9192 from Aligarh Check Post between 5.1.1985 to 16.1.1985, 26.1.1985- 11.2.1985 during the said period did not passed through Ossor-Bangalore route. The said witness in his cross examination has admitted that there is no other way for the vehicles to pass except the said way.

34. P.W. 19 B.A. Patil has stated that he was posted as Assistant Inspector, Motor Vehicle A.R.T.O. on check post Pulsner, district Chalia, Maharashtra from January 1986 to October, 1986 and he has checked the register and tax recovery register of all the vehicles and has found that Bus Nos. URJ 9192 and URB 4935 from 1.1.1985 to 1.3.1985 during the said period did not pass through the check post/barrier Plasner to Ujjain, Ajanta and Udiapur Nasik Road. The said check post is between M.P. and Maharashtra.

35. In his cross examination, he has admitted that the said route is the main route of the vehicles and he does not know about the short route. None of the vehicle can go without paying the toll tax.

36. P.W. 21 M. Krishnappa has stated that he was posted as R.T.O. Raja Ji Nagar, Banglore West in the year 1984 to 1988. From 1.1.1985 to 11.2.1985, Bus No. URB 4935 and URJ 9192 no tax was collected by the Motor Vehicle Inspector as according to their record no tax was collected from the said vehicle.

37. In his cross examination the witness has stated that there is no other route for going to Bangalore and Pune.

38. P.W. 31 Syed Sajid Ali, who was examined by the trial court stated that he was posted as Inspector at C.B.I. Dehradun in the year 1985-86. On 16.8.1985, an F.I.R. was registered as R.C. No. 18 of 1985 at DAD Dehradun and S.P. Dehradun. Paper No. 4 Ka is the photocopy of the F.I.R. on which there is signature of then S.P. Sri S.C. Sinha which is identified by him as he has worked with him and the said F.I.R. has been marked as Ext. 173 and the investigation of the same was entrusted to him and the during the course of investigation he has seized all the documents and has sent the same to the G.E.Q.D. Calcutta and has received the opinion of the Expert which is marked as Exts. 172, 169 in his office. On letter no. 3162 dated 3.5.1988 there was signature of S.P. Sri S.C. Sinha and he has identified the same as Ext. Ka 174. He had prepared the seizure memo dated 29.8.1985, 30.8.1985, 6.9.1985, 6.9.1985, 30.9.1985, 9.12.1985, 10.12.1985, 27.1.1985 and after seeing them he has stated that the seizure memo which bears the signature of Indrajeet Gupta, T.R. Sharma, N.R. Sharma, N.R. Sharma, Veerpal Singh, P.L. Sharma, R.C.S. Yadav, Yogendrapal Singh, S.C. Shivhar has been seized by him. The said seizure memo is in his hand writing and signature and also bears the signatures of the said persons. He has recorded the statements of witnesses and done the other formalities and submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons and forwarded the charge-sheet to the then S.P. Sri S.C. Sinha and has proved the same as Ext. Ka-318. The signature of the witness has been proved as Ext. Ka-318 Ka and of Sri S.C. Sinha as Ext. Ka-318 Ka.

39. In his cross examination, he has stated that except accused Yogendrapal Singh all the accused persons were the employees of Central Government. He admitted that no sanction for their prosecution has been taken from the competent authority by him.

40. He denied that the accused have not committed any cheating and he has submitted a wrong charge-sheet against them.

41. The trial court after going through the prosecution case and the defence version has recorded a finding of conviction of the co-accused and the revisionists sending them for the offence under section 120-B, for three months simple imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 1,000/- and under section 420 I.P.C. for six months S.I. with fine of Rs. 2,000/- whereas under section 420 read with 109 I.P.C. six months R.I. and 2,000/- fine each. All the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently and in default of payment of fine one and half months R.I. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the revisionists preferred an appeal before the Special Judge, (Prevention of Corruption Act (East), Ghaziabad and the lower appellate court partly allowed the appeal of the co-accused persons and the revisionists and has upheld the conviction and sentence of the revisionists under section 120-B and 420 I.P.C. awarded by the trial court and set aside their conviction under section 420 read with 109 I.P.C. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of the trial court and the lower appellate court, the revisionists preferred the instant revision against their conviction and sentence under section 120-B and 420 I.P.C.

42. Heard Sri Vijendra Pal Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist no. 6-Vijendra Pal Singh @ V.P. Singh and Sri Vipin Kumar, learned counsel for the revisionist no. 4-Moti Singh and Gyan Prakash, learned counsel for the C.B.I. and Ms. Archana Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.

43. Learned counsel for revisionist no. 6 vehemently argued that revisionist Vijendra Pal Singh @ V.P. Singhis not an employee of the postal department whereas the other accused persons were employed as Assistant in the postal department and revisionist no. 6 was Account Officer in B.S.N.L., Aligarh. It was argued by learned counsel for the revisionist no. 6 that there appears to be no evidence against revisionist no. 6 adduced by the prosecution excepting some of the bills which were issued by the co-accused revisionist n. 7 Yogendra Pal Singh, who is the proprietor of M/s Indu Travels. The said bills were prepared by revisionist no. 6 Vijendra Pal Singh @ V.P. Singh in collusion with revisionist no. 7 Yogendra Pal Singh. When the said bills were sent to the hand writing expert as per the opinion of the hand writing expert, the said bills were found to be prepared by revisionist no. 6 Vijendra Pal Singh. He submitted that the evidence of hand writing expert is a weak type of evidence and such evidence must be received with caution to rely upon if it is for the purpose of conviction. In support of his argument, he has relied upon Paras-5 and 6 of judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Magan Bihari Lal vs. State of Punjab reported in 1977 AIR (SC) 1091, hence the conviction and sentence of the present revisionist by both the Court's below have only relied upon the evidence of hand writing expert for the conviction and sentencing of the revisionist no. 6 Vijendra Pal Singh @ V.P. Singh which was not sufficient enough to record the conviction and sentence of the revisionist no. 6 without their being any further corroboration of the prosecution evidence, hence the conviction and sentence of the revisionist no. 6 by the trial court and by the lower appellate Court be set aside.

44. So far as revisionist no. 4 Moti Singh Rajpoot is concerned, Sri Vipin Kumar learned counsel for the revisionist no. 4 though tried to assail the judgment of the two lower courts by arguing that the revisionist no. 4 is innocent and he had taken the amount in question from the postal department claiming L.T.C. for the purpose for which he had gone from Aligarh to Kanya Kumari along with his family members and had submitted its bills but the trial court rejected the defence and has recorded the finding of conviction and sentence and he has already undergone the sentence awarded by the courts below for the offence in question and the said revisionist as on date is aged about 79 years.

45. So far as revisionist no. 7 Yogendra Pal Singh is concerned he too has also been served out the sentence awarded by the lower court for the offence in question and none has appeared on his behalf to contest the present revision on merits though he had sufficient notice about the pendency of the present revision against his conviction and sentence.

46. Learned counsel for the C.B.I. has vehemently opposed the arguments of the learned counsel for revisionist nos. 4 and 6 and has submitted that the revisionist no. 4 has submitted wrong bills for claiming L.T.C. from the postal department and has received amount without availing the facility of L.T.C. and he did not travel from Aligarh to Kanya Kumari as has been proved by the prosecution before the trial court as well as by the lower appellate court through cogent prosecution evidence. He submitted that the bills which have been submitted by him for claiming L.T.C. was found to be fictitious bills which was obtained by him in a deceitful manner from P.W. 7 Yogendrapal Singh Proprietor of M/s Indu Travels and further the prosecution produce prosecution witnesses, who are the class teachers of the daughters of revisionist no. 4 in the school where they were studying have also deposed that there was manipulation done in the attendance register of his children as they were found to be present there during the period in which he claimed L.T.C. He had received the amount which has been submitted by him as per the documentary evidence and as per the statement recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C., hence the trial court has rightly convicted and sentenced him for the offence in question and the lower appellate court upheld the judgment and order of the trial court against him.

47. So far as revisionist no. 6 is concerned it was vehemently argued by him that there appears to be clinching evidence against him for preparing wrong bills of M/s Indu Travels in collusion with revisionist no. 7 Yogendrapal Singh Proprietor of Indu Travels, who had issued wrong bills by deceitful means to benefit the co-accused persons including the revisionist no. 4 as per the opinion of the hand writing expert, the disputed bills which were issued by Indu Travels it was found that the same was in the writing of revisionist no. 6 Vijendra Pal Singh @ V.P. Singh, hence his involvement in the case cannot be ruled out and his conviction and sentence by both the courts below is absolutely right and do not suffer from any illegality, infirmity or impropriety.

48. After having considered the submissions advanced and perused the judgment and orders of the courts below and the lower appellate court it transpires from the prosecution case that an information was received by the S.P. C.B.I. Dehradun about the employees of the head post office of district Aligarh for claiming the amount of L.T.C. by submitting fictitious bills and wrong permits of the two buses the other accused persons and the revisionists were said to have travelled on different dates. In January, 1985 by Bus Nos. URB 4935 and URJ 9192 and the bills which were issued on the basis of which the accused persons including the revisionist have received the L.T.C. amount were found to be wrong and fictitious bills as during the course of investigation it was found that the said accused, who were employees of postal department, Aligarh have not actually travelled from Aligarh to Kanya Kumari along with their family members and they have received the payment from the postal department by deceitful means in collusion with the revisionist nos. 6 and 7. The prosecution has led as many as 31 prosecution witness in support of its case which includes the employees of postal department, the teachers and the principals of the institution where the children of the employees of the postal department were studying, the owners of two buses by which it was stated that the accused-revisionist no. 4 had gone from Aligarh to Kanya Kumari. The driver and the conductor of the said two buses, who have stated that the said two buses were neither sent nor gone from Aligarh to Kanya Kumari from 7th January, 1985 at any point of time. The permits were never issued for the said two buses for going to Kanya Kumari from Aligarh. The driver and conductor of the two buses have also stated that they did not go to Kanya Kumari by the said two buses from Aligarh to Kanya Kumari. The teachers and principals of the institution, who have proved that the children of the eight employees of the postal department, who have claimed L.T.C. were found present in the school on the dates on which the revisionists have claimed the amount of L.T.C. from Aligarh to Kanya Kumari. Moreover, the documentary evidence which were collected by the Investigating Officer of the C.B.I. was sent to Public Analyst for examination and PW 30 has stated that the documentary evidence which includes the bills issued by M/s Indu Travels were wrong bills which were prepared by P.W. 7 in a deceitful manner on the basis of which the said co-accused and revisionist no. 4 obtained L.T.C. amount from the postal department and caused a loss of Rs. 61875/- to the postal department. Out of seven revisionists, revisionists Yadram Sagar, Malkhan, Mishree Lal Pippal and Bahori Singh, who were employees of postal department, Aligarh and had claimed L.T.C. without going from Aligarh to Kanya kumari for themselves and for their family members had died. Revisionist no. 4 Moti Singh Rajpoot has already served out the sentence awarded to him by the trial court. He claimed the amount of L.T.C. for himself and for his family members without going from Aligarh to Kanya Kumari on fictitious bills issued by revisionist no. 7 Yogendra Pal Singh, Proprietor of M/s Indu Travels, Aligarh, hence his conviction and sentence by the two courts below is fully justified.

49. So far as P.W. 6 is concerned it is true that he was an Account Officer of B.S.N.L. and the evidence which have been led against him by the C.B.I. is of forging some bills said to be issued by M/s Indu Travels but there appears to be a report of the Public Analyst P.W 30 that some of the disputed bills were said to have been prepared by revisionist no. 6 Vijendra Pal Singh in collusion with revisionist no. 7 Yogendra Pal Singh but except the said evidence there appears to be no further corroborating evidence led by the prosecution to show his involvement in the present case. The judgment which has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the revisionist no. 6 Vijendra Pal Singh @ V.P. Singh regarding the evidence of hand writing expert in the case of Magan Bihari Lal (Supra), the Apex Court has held that the expert opinion must always be received with a great caution to rely upon it for the purpose of conviction as by its very nature it is a weak type of evidence than the opinion of the hand writing expert. There is a profusion of precedential authority which holds that it is unsafe to base a conviction solely on expert opinion without substantial corroboration. In the said judgment, the Apex Court has affirmed its earlier judgment reported in AIR 1957 SC 381 Ram Chandra v. State of U.P. and another and also in another judgment of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1967 SC 1326 Fakhruddin v. State of M.P. The Apex Court had considered the precedential value of expert opinion in regard to hand writing and observed that if uttered a note of caution pointing out that it would be risky to form a conviction solely on the evidence of a hand writing expert and before acting upon such evidence, the Court must always try to see whether it is corroborated by other evidence, direct or circumstantial evidence. Learned counsel for the C.B.I. also could not point out any other corroborating evidence against revisionist no. 6 except the opinion of hand writing expert.

50. In view of the above foregoing discussion with respect to revisionist no. 6 and also taking into account the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Magan Bihari (Supra), the case of revisionist no. 6 squarely covered by the said judgment and the conviction and sentence of revisionist no. 6 by the courts below appears to be not sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be quashed. It is accordingly, set aside. The revision on behalf of revisionist no. 6 Vijendra Pal Singh @ V.P. Singh stands allowed. He stated to be on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bond and sureties stands discharged.

51. It is further directed that the revisionist no. 6 Vijendra Pal Singh @ V.P. Singh shall furnish bail bonds with sureties to the satisfaction of the court concerned in terms of the provision of Section 437-A Cr.P.C.

52. So far as revisionist no. 7 Yogendra Pal Singh is concerned, he has already served out the sentence awarded to him by the courts below and has not appeared to contest the matter though sufficient notice has been served to him, hence the revision on his behalf is dismissed accordingly.

53. So far as revisionist no. 6 Moti Singh Rajpoot is concerned, his conviction and sentence by the courts below is hereby affirmed and as he has already served out the sentence awarded to him, hence the revision on his behalf also is dismissed accordingly.

54. Let the lower court record along with the present order be transmitted to the trial court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith.

Dated:-24.5.2019

Shiraz.