Post on 18-Apr-2015
1 R. C. C. No. 10/2003
TIME BOUND Received on : 24/02/199931/01/2011. Registered on: 24/02/1999
Decided on : 28/01/2011 Duration : Ys. Ms. Ds.
IN THE COURT OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, PUNEAT : PUNE
( Presided over by Mrs. Suchitra Shrikant Ghodke )
OLD R.C C .NO.54/1999 OLD R.C C .NO.55/2001 NEW.RC C .NO.10/2003 EXH.
Central Bureau of INvestigation ]through Sh. C. Phunsong, Joint ]..Complainant.Secretary to Government of India ]Prime Minister's Office, New Delhi. ]
V/S.
1. Smt. Prabhavati Bhiwaji Parkhi ]Age- 45 years, Occupation-Household ] .R/at- 4/24, Police Wireless Quarter ]Chauhan Nagar, Pune. ]
]] .. Accused.
2. Shri Jagannath Dnynoba Parkhi ] Age- 50 years, Occupation-Business ]R/at- 4/24, Police Wireless Quarter ]Chauhan Nagar, Pune. ]
CHARGE : Offence punishable under section 120-B 420, read with 511, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code
APPEARANCE :- Shri. Mohanrao Deshmukh, Lrd., Special Prosecutor for the CBI. Accused no. 2 in person and on behalf of accused no.1.
2 R. C. C. No. 10/2003
J U D G M E N T
[ Dictated and Delivered on 28-01-2011 ]
1. Central Bureau of Investigation, SCB-II, New Delhi
registered the offence under section 120-B, 420, read with 511,
468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code against the both accused
bearing RC 3(S)/97/SCB-II/DLI.
2. In brief the prosecution case is as follows :-
The accused no. 1 Prabhavati is the younger sister of
accused no. 2 Jagannath Parkhi. Prabhavati was appointed as a
Telegraph Assistant in Central Telegraph Office (C. T. O), Pune on
30/4/1982 vide memo no. site-1/Apptt/CLKS. She had resigned
from service on 12/02/1985. Later on her mind was changed and
she wanted her reinstatement in the service. She had requested
on 20/02/1985 and on 4/5/1992 in that context. On 20/5/1992
vide D.O.No. STE/9/PBP dated 20/5/1992 her request was
rejected. Accused no. 1 filed a petition in Central Administrative
Tribunal, Mumbai on 13/07/1992. It was dismissed on 30/05/1996
upholding the decision of the department. The accused no. 1
entered into criminal conspiracy with her brother accused no. 2
Jagannath, in the year 1997. On 24/7/1997 they got prepared a
forged letter purportedly issued by Hon'ble I. K. Gujral, the then
Prime Minister. The said letter was addressed to C. V. Rajan, the
then Chief General manager, Telecom, Mumbai regarding
reinstatement of accused no. 1 in the service. The said forged
letter along with envelope of Prime Minister's Office, New Delhi.
It was tendered on 27/8/1997 by accused no. 2 in the office of
General Manager (Development) Telecom, Pune for faxing the
same to the office of Chief General Manager, Mumbai. After
3 R. C. C. No. 10/2003
faxing the same all the original documents were taken by
accused no. 2 from Smt. B. Rajlaxmi, Senior Personal Assistant,
General Manager, (Development) Telecom, Pune who faxed the
alleged letter. It was faxed through the fax No. 91-212-453646.
The accused no. 2 had visited the office of Chief General
Manager, C. V. Rajan and Shri H. Sundersan, Principal General
Manager, Telecom, Mumbai on 21/8/1997, 9/9/1997. He has
inquired about the reinstatement of accused no. 1 in the service.
3. On 21/8/1997 he has also told to Mr. C. V. Rajan, the
then Chief General Manager about the letter dated 24/7/1997.
Accused no. 2 had given a visitor slip to Mr. C. V. Rajan in his own
handwriting mentioning the subject pending with their
department. Chief General Manager referred the matter to
Principal General Manager, Mr. H. Sundersan. Mr. Sundersan had
marked the same to Assistant General Manager, TT, to find out
the exact matter. H. Sundersan asked the accused no. 1 to
tender the copy of the alleged letter for his perusal. Accused no.
2 had gone to the office of General Manager, (Development)
Telecom, Pune on 27/8/1997 and met to Smt. B. Rajlaxmi and
insisted the above mentioned fax. On 9/9/1997 the accused no.
2 visited the office of Chief General Manager, Telecom, Mumbai
and contacted to H. Sundersan then Principal General Manager.
There also he inquired about the matter regarding reinstatement
of Prabhavati B. Parkhi in the service in compliance of the letter
dated 24/7/1997 of the then Hon'ble Prime Minister. According to
the prosecution the alleged letter dated 24/7/1997 was never
issued from the office of Hon'ble Prime Minister.
4. The Principal General Manager Mr. H. Sundersan
expressed his doubt about the authenticity of the alleged letter.
4 R. C. C. No. 10/2003
He referred the fax copy of the letter to Prime Minister's office for
clarification and this fact was disclosed by Mr. H. Sundersan to
accused no. 2 when he had come for inquiry. Thereafter accused
no. 2 become apprehensive and left the office of Chief General
Manager without further inquiry. The office of Chief General
Manager, Telecom, Mumbai referred the xerox copy of the letter
fax sent by the accused no. 2 from Pune office to the Prime
Minister's office on 15/09/1997.
5. Mr. Vikram Mishri, Private Secretary to Hon'ble Prime
Minister replied to the letter dated 15/09/1997 of H. Shundersan,
as on 01/11/1997 confirming by the security agencies that the
letter was a forgery and it was not issued by the Prime Minister's
office.
6. Mr. C. Phunsog, Joint Secretary, to the Hon'ble Prime
Minister's office New Delhi had issued a request letter to Mr. R.
C. Sharma, Director of Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi
as on 06/11/1997 to investigate the matter expeditiously and
report to be sent to their office earliest. On 22/12/1997 the First
Information Report was lodged under section 154 of Cr. P. C. by
Mr. C. Phunsong, Joint Secretary, to the Hon'ble Prime Minister's
office New Delhi. Thereafter the investigation was done by
Central Bureau Investigation. Superintendent of Police, Central
Bureau Investigation, Special Crime Branch, Block No. 4, New
Delhi, Mr. I. S. Saroha, sent a letter on 31/12/1997 to Mr. H.
Sundersan, Principal General Manager office of Chief General
Manager, Telecom, Mumbai, referring the letter dated
15/09/1997 addressed to the Private Secretary to the Hon'ble
Prime Minister disclosing lodging of F.I. R. 3/3/1997 registered
against the accused nos. 1 and other in Special Crime Branch,
5 R. C. C. No. 10/2003
C.B.I., New Delhi. Mr. I. S. Saroha, Superintendent of Police, CBI
entrusted the registered offence to Y. Harikumar, Inspector of
CBI/SCB-II/New Delhi for investigation. The copy of the F.I. R.
was given to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi. After
completion of the investigation, Mr. J. C. Tiwari presented the
charge-sheet under section 173 of Cr. P. C. to the Judicial
Magistrate, First Class, Court No. 4, Pune on 24/02/1999.
7. The charge was framed at Exh. 262 against the
accused nos. 1 and 2 on 22/2/2008. They denied the charge and
claimed to be tried for the same. The defence of the accused is
that the false and concocted bogus case without any iota of
evidence has been filed by the prosecution. Even the jurisdiction
of this court to try this complaint is challenged by the accused.
The FIR is also not legal.
8. Points for determination are .
POINTS FINDINGS
1. Whether the prosecution proves that the accused no. 1 and no. 2 criminally
conspired agreed and prepared a forged letter dated 24/7/1997 purportedly issued by Shri I. K. Gujral, the then Hon'blePrime Minister illegally? ...In the affirmative.
2. Whether prosecution proves that the accused nos. 1 and 2 prepared a forged letter dated 24/07/1997 for the purpose of cheating to Mr. C. V. Rajan, Chief General Manager, Mumbai? .. In the affirmative.
3. Whether prosecution proves that the accused nos. 1 and 2 havingcriminal conspiracy dishonestly
6 R. C. C. No. 10/2003
and fraudulently used the forgedletter dated 24/7/1997 as a genuineby sending fax from Telecom officeto Mumbai Telecom office having knowledge that it was forged? ...In the affirmative.
4. Whether prosecution proves that the accused nos. 1 and 2 with the help of forged letter dated 24/7/1997 attempted to cheat to Mr. C. V. Rajan dishonestly to induce him to reinstate the accused no.1? … In the affirmative.
5. What order ? .As per final order.
R E A S O N S
AS TO POINT NO. 1:-
9. The accused no. 1 is the cousin sister of accused no. 2.
both are facing the trial for the criminal conspiracy, doing illegal
act of preparing the forged letter, with intention to reinstate in
the service to accused no. 1 in the telegraph Department. They
have also made attempt to cheat the chief General Manager of
Telecom, Mumbai. The act of forgery is preparing the letter
dated 24/7/1997 purportedly issued by the then Hon'ble Prime
Minister Shri I. K. Gujral. They have also used the letter by way of
fax addressed to the Chief General Manager of Telecom, Mumbai
from the office of General Manager, Telecom, Pune.
10. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused the
prosecution has examined in all 11 testis. Mr. Vasant Govind
Kelkar, the Assistant General Manager of B. S. N.L. Posted at
Mumbai examined at Exh. 283, Smt. B. Rajlaxmi, the Senior
Personal Assistant to the General Manager ( Development)
7 R. C. C. No. 10/2003
Telecom, Pune at Exh. 494, Prabhakar Laxmanrao Waghmare,
the person working in Divisional Engineering Vigilance, Telecom
Department, Bajirao Road, Pune at Exh. 522, Premraj Shamlal
Bhoyar, Senior Telegraph office Assistant at exh. 530, Mr. H.
Sundersan S/o. R. Harihazar Ayyar, Principal General Manager
and in charge of Chief General Manager, Telecom, Mumbai at
Exh. 535, then C. V. Rajan S/o. g. Chinna Swami, Chief General
Manager at Exh. 563, Mr. Jivan Das S/o. Shriramlal Utreja at Exh.
564, Mr. C. Phunsong, Under Secretary Administration in Hon'ble
Prime Minister's ofifce at Exh. 647, Mr. Y. Harikumar the then
Inspector of Central Bureau of Investigation, special crime branch
II, New Delhi at Exh. 651, Mr. Jagdish Chandra Tiwari, the
inspector of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Delhi who
has done partly investigation of this case at Exh. 659 and at Exh.
683 Lavang Lata Sharam, the Scientific Assistant, working at
Central Forensic Science Laboratory, New Delhi. The prosecution
has also produced documentary evidence which are at relevant
places.
11. Heard Mr. Mohan Deshmukh, the special prosecutor for
the Central Bureau of Investigation and the accused no. 2 for
himself and for accused no. 1 who has submitted the written
notes of argument at Exh. 793.
12. The accused no. 1 Prabhavati Parkhi was appointed on
30/4/1982 as Telegraph Assistant at D. T. O., Shivajinagar, Pune.
Her appointment order is produced on record at Exh. 523. she
has tendered her resignation on 12/2/1985 which was accepted
by the department on 21/2/1985. Her service book file No. Staff
C-592 is produced on record at exh. 524, 525, 526. Exh. 526
disclosed that she has tendered her resignation which was
8 R. C. C. No. 10/2003
accepted with effect from 21/2/1985. The acceptance order was
fixed in the service book at page 1081. In the statement under
section 313 of Cr. p. C. the accused has admitted at question no.
43 about documents Exh.523, 524, 526 which is the service
record. Accused no. 1 admitted about the filing of revision before
the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, which was dismissed
on 22/7/1996. Thereafter the accused no. 2 had sent the fax to
the Chief General Manager from General Manager, Telcom, Pune
in which he had sent the copy of appeal addressed to Mr. C. V.
Rajan containing four pages. Prosecution has produced the said
copy of appeal at Exh. 285. Accused no. 1 has changed her mind
after tendering her resignation to be remain continued in the
service for which she has filed the revision. She was interested to
get reinstate in the service by hook or crook. The accused no. 2
is the cousin brother of accused no. 1 on the record. In the
evidence of Investigating officer the relationship of accused nos.
1 and 2 has come in para 5 that the accused no. 2 is the cousin
brother of accused no. 1 who were residing together. In the
statement under section 313 of Cr. P. C.. the name of father of
both accused are differently narrated. In the cross examination
the accused have not challenged their relationship. So it has
come on record that the accused nos. 1 and 2 having the
relationship as cousin sister and brother.
13. Having the intention to reinstate in the service it is the
case of the prosecution that both the accused criminally
conspired together and prepared a forged document. There was
cause behind preparing the forged document .i.e. to get reinstate
in the service in the Telecom department. The accused no. 2 has
visited the office of Chief General Manager, Mumbai on
21/8/1997. he was having intention to visit Mr. C. V. Rajan hence
9 R. C. C. No. 10/2003
filled up the visitors slip. The visitors slip was written by the
accused no. 2 which is produced on record by the prosecution at
Exh. 284. If we perused the contents of the visitors slip the
accused no. 2 J. D. Parkhi is the person to be intended to visit to
see Mr. C. V. Rajan, the timing is 11.40, nature of business
mentioned the accused no. 2 directed by mr. A. V. Bokak,
Chairman and Secretary of D. T. O. to talk to Shri C. V. Rajan,
personally regarding the issue pending in this office for last four
months. Mr. C. V. Rajan had written remark on the said slip that
Prabhavati Parkhi, Telegraph Assistant, Pune removed from the
service on 21/2/1985, C.B.I. Report – misconduct of two officers –
Prime Minister's office no reference, July.
14. At the same time Mr. H. Sundersan was the Principal
General Manager. He has given the said visitors slip to the
Assistant General Manager mr. Vasant Kelkar, Principal General
Manager Mr. H. Sundersan has also signed on the said slip and
asked him to keep it along with the application. It was signed on
29/8/1997. The prosecution witness Mr. Vasant Kelkar has
narrated these facts in his chief examination.
15. The prosecution has also examined the witness Mr. H.
Sundersan at Exh. 535 who has narrated in his chief examination
having the reference of the said visitors slip Exh. 284 and also
admitted his endorsement on it.
16. The Chief General Manager Mr. C. V. Rajan who has
deposed at exh. 563 narrated in chief examination about the visit
of accused no. 2 on 21/8/1997 to his office to see him in view of
Exh. 284. In the cross examination of Mr. C. V. Rajan it has come
on record that Exh. 284 does not bear the signature of visitor.
10 R. C. C. No. 10/2003
Exh. 284 is the property of their department is brought by the
accused. According to the accused that he had never
approached on 21/8/1997 to the office of Mr. C. V. Rajan.
Contents of Exh. 284 in column nature of business were written
by his staff admitted by Mr. C. V. Rajan in the cross examination.
But further he has also narrated sometimes visitors used to fill up
the slip. The witness does not know whether Prabhavati Parkhi
was removed from the service or tendered her resignation. On
the basis of this argument the accused tried to bring on record
that he has not visited on 21/8/1997 to see Mr. C. V. Rajan.
17. The prosecution has come before this court after this
visit dated 21/8/1997 on 9/9/1997 the accused no. 2 had come to
see the Principal General Manager Mr. H. Sundersan. In that
respect the evidence is brought on record through the witness
mr. Vasant Kelkar at Exh. 283 in chief examination. It has come
in his evidence that Mr. H. Sundersan was Principal General
Manager. Accused no. 2 had filled up the visitors slip. In the
visitors slip he has mentioned the reason for his visit that he was
asked to see Mr. H. Sundersan after two weeks. Along with this
visitor slip he had also submitted one letter addressed to Mr. H.
Sundersan, principal General Manager. He has mentioned in the
said letter that please communicate his decision regarding the
Central Bureau Investigation inquiry report being C.B.I. Case
since the case is quite old one. That letter is produced on record
at Exh. 289 and the visitors slip is at exh. 290. The visitor slip
Exh. 290 is dated 9/9/1997, Name of visitor is J. Parkhi, to see the
person is Mr. H. Sundersan, the name of business is that he was
asked to see after two weeks. From the contents it can be safely
infer that he had come there before two weeks.
11 R. C. C. No. 10/2003
18. The letter enclosed along with this slip Exh. 289 is
mentioning his address to H. Sundersan mentioning that please
communicate your decision regarding C.B.I. Inquiry report of
Pune C. T. O case since the case is quite old. The handwriting of
Exh. 289 and Exh. 290 is one and the same. The evidence given
by Mr. Vasant Kelkar at Exh. 283 is nowhere challenged by the
accused by taking the cross examination.
19. Mr. Vasnat Kelkar has narrated about the letter Exh.
289, visit slip, Exh. 290 which was seized by CBI, investigating
officer mr. J. C. Tiwari. The said memo is at Exh. 291. Exh. 291 is
containing the details where the documents were seized. They
were seized in the office.
20. The prosecution witness Mr. H. Sundersan deposed at
Exh. 535 about the visit of accused no. 2 J. Parkhi on 21/8/1997
alogn with one lady. On the very date he had listened loudly
noise out of his chamber. After hearing noise he had come from
his chamber and seen that J. D. Parkhi was there. Accused has
taken the cross examination of Mr. C. V. Rajan in respect of the
visitor slip Exh. 284 alleged to be issued by him to Mr. C. V.
Rajan. Mr. H. Sundersan has narrated in the chief examination
that the office of Chief General Manager and Principal General
Manager were located on one floor and both were adjacent to
each other. According to Mr. H. Sundersan when he had come
out from his office the accused no. 2 was addressing loudly to his
Personal Assistant and Board operator. Hence he took him to his
chamber. The accused no. 2 was saying that his sister may be
reinstated in the service. AT that time he had also disclosed that
letter has been sent by Hon'ble Prime Minister's office for
reinstatement his sister even then their office was not taking any
12 R. C. C. No. 10/2003
action. Accused no. 2 mentioned that he was having the copy of
the said P.M. O. letter but it was not available with him and he
will hand over the same to General Manager, office, Pune and
General Manager, pune will transmit the same to his office and
thereafter he left the chamber of witness Mr. H. Sundersan.
21. The accused is denying his visit to the office of C. V.
Rajan in view of Exh. 284. Adjacent to the office C. V. Rajan is the
office of the Principal General manager is of H.Sunderesan is not
denied byt eh accused. The evidence of H. Sunderesan supported
the prosecution case about the visit of the accused on 21/8/1997
Telecom Department of Chief General Manager. The given
evidence by said witness mr. H. Sundersan about the visit of both
of accused on 21/8/1997 is not challenged by the accused in the
cross examination. The witness Mr. H. Sundersan has narrated
further in the chief examination that on 9/9/1997 accused Parkhi
had come his office and took the appointment from his Personal
Assistant to see him. On the very date the accused was
intimated by the witness that the witness has taken the action on
the fax letter sent by accused Parkhi.
22. Between 21/8/1997 to 9/9/1997 the accused had visited
on 27/8/1997 to the General Manager office at Pune. The
prosecution witness Mr. Smt. B. Rajlaxmi is examined at Exh. 494
who has narrated that in the month of August 1997 accused no.
2 had come to her office. Accused no. 1 was also accompanied
with him. They wanted to see Mr. Datar, General Manager
( Development ) with whom the witness was working as Senior
Personal Assistant. On the very date Mr. Datar was out of station
hence witness told him about the absenty of Mr. Datar in the
office. At that time accused no. 2 told her that he had gone to
13 R. C. C. No. 10/2003
the office of Chief General Manager, Maharashtra Telecom,
Mumbai. He further informed that he met to Mr. H. Sundersan
the Principal General manager (operation), Mumbai. He furtehr
met to H. Sundersan in connection of reinstatement of accused
no. 1. it was also informed that he wanted to give one letter to
Mr. H. Sundersan as they were not having with letter with them
at Mumbai office. Mr. H. Sundersan had advised him to send that
letter by using the fax of General Manager (Development) Pune.
All these facts were narrated by the witness Smt. B. Rajlaxmi to
Mr. Datar. Thereafter also the accused insisted to talk with Mr.H.
Sundersan on telephone. Accused was not ready to go out from
the office. Therefore, witness had called Mr. H. Sundersan on
telephone. Further she has narrated that Mr. H. Sundersan was in
the meeting and she talked with the Personal Assistant to Mr. H.
Sundersan making queries that whether they have sent anybody
to their office to send the letter by using their fax. Mr. H.
Sundersan has answered that he had sent the accused no. 2 to
their office. Hence, the witness Rajlaxmi had taken the letter
from the custody of accused no.2 which was addressed to Mr.C.
V. Rajan, Chief General Manager, Maharashtra telecom, Mumbai.
The witness Mr. H. Sundersan in his chief examination has
narrated about the query made by Smt. B. Rajlaxmi on 27/8/1997
about Mr. Parkhi and asked him to send the copy of the letter of
P.M.O. Office which was to be transmitted through the Pune
office to them . On the very date on 27/8/1997 the fax copy of
P.M.O. Leter was sent by Smt. B.Rajlaxmi to Mr. H. Sundersan.
That fax is produced on record at Exh. 286. The letter Exh. 286
fax is the alleged letter purportedly to be issued by the Hon'ble
Prime Minister Shri I. K. Gujral dated 24/7/1997 addressed to C.
V. Rajan having the D. O. No.230-5/97 dated 24/7/1997, New
Delhi. The second visitors slip dated 9/9/1997 produced at Exh.
14 R. C. C. No. 10/2003
290 was addressed to Mr. H. Sundersan. Mr. H. Sundersan has
narrated in his chief examination that on 21/8/1997 as well as on
9/9/1997 accused no. 2 filled up the visitors slip before visting to
him. The slip Exh. 284 bears his endorsement in his own
handwriting. The visitors slip dated 9/9/1997 also bears his
signature and initial. The given evidence by Mr. H. Sundersan in
respect of the second slip dated 9/9/1997 and on 21/8/1997 is
not challenged by the accused in the cross examination. So I am
of the view that only the admissions given by the C. V. Rajan in
the cross examination that the contents of Exh. 284 does not
bear the signature of Jagannath Parkhi does not establish that
the accused has not visited on 21/8/1997 and on 9/9/1997 to the
office of Chief General Manager, Principal General Manager on
the very dates. Between these two visits the alleged letter dated
24/7/1997 was sent by the accused on fax to the Chief General
Manager office, Mumbai on 27/8/1997. If the accused had not
visited on 21/8/1997 he could not have disclose Smt. Rajlaxmi at
Pune that Mr. H. Sundersan has asked him to send a letter on fax
to the office of Mumbai. Because there is sufficient evidence
brought on record that Mr. H. Sundersan has told to Smt.
Rajlaxmi about the visit of accused to their office on 21/8/1997
and accordingly, he has asked him to send the fax through the
Pune office. Accordingly, alleged fax .i.e. alleged letter of
purportedly issued by the Hon'ble Prime Minister Shri I. K. Gujral
is faxed by the General Manager (Development ) office, Pune
through the witness Smt. Rajlaxmi. Thereafter, second visit of
the accused is on 9/9/1997 to Mr. H. Sundersan. Under these
circumstances, I am of the considerable view that the
prosecution has established that on21/8/1997 in view of the
visitors slip Exh. 284 he had visited to the office of Chief General
Manager, Telcom, Mumbaii and after his visit the alleged letter
15 R. C. C. No. 10/2003
was requested by accused to send it on fax through the Pune
office to the Chief General Manager office, Mumbai.
23. In respect of the second visit on 9/9/1997 the
prosecution witness Mr. H. Sundersan has narrated at Exh. 535
that he had disclosed to the accused on his query about the
letter, he told him that he discussed with Chief General Manager
at Mumbai and they decided to refer the matter to the Hon'ble
Prime Minister's office, Delhi. Accordingly, in the month of
September 1997 the witness Mr. H. Sundersan has issued a letter
to the Vikram Mishri, the personal Secretary to the Hon'ble Prime
Minister's office, New Delhi. The said letter is produced at exh.
288. After this intimation given to the accused he never turned
to the office of Chief General Manager, Mumbai.
24. The prosecution has produced the letter sent by H.
Sundersan to the Vikram Mishri at Exh. 288 which is having the
reference of the D. O. letter No. 530-5/97 dated 24/7/1997 sent
by Smt. Prabhavati Parkhi, Central Telegraph office, pune. It was
also intimated by Mr.H. Sundersan that they have not received
the original letter from the Hon'ble Prime Minister's Office and
requested kindly to confirm whether that leter was sent from
their office. From the said evidence it is clear that whatever the
prosecution has brought the evidence about sending the fax of
the letter dated 24/7/1997 from Pune office by accused no. 1 and
no. 2 is believable and having truth of attempt to verify the
original letter alleged to be sent by Hon'ble Prime Minister's
office. After receipt of the letter from Mr. H. Sundersan, the
Private Secretary to the Hon'ble Prime Minister Mr. Vikram Mishri
has immediately sent the letter to Mr. H. Sundersan on
1/11/1997. The original letter is produced at Exh. 541. It was
16 R. C. C. No. 10/2003
intimated by Mr. Vikram Mishri that the said letter is a forgery
and has not issued from their office. Mr. Vikram Mishri has asked
the concerned Security Agencies to take further action in that
regard. The reply given by the Mr. Vikram Mishri to the letter of
Mr. H. Sundersann dated 15/09/1997 discloses that the Hon'ble
Prime Minister office, New Delhi has not issued any letter
addressed to Mr. C. V. Rajan of which the accused have sent the
fax from Pune Telecom office to Mumbai telecom office.
25. The prosecution has examined the witness Mr. Jivandas
at Exh. 564. The said witness was the Under Secretary,
Administration, in the Hon'ble Prime Minister's office. He has
narrated in his evidence that one Mr. Vikram Mishri who was
working as Private Secretary in the office of Hon'ble Prime
Minister's office. He has handed over all the relevant documents
of Parkhi's case to Central Bureau of investigation for
investigation. From the evidence of this witness it also clears
prima facie that the letter dated 24/7/1997 was not sent by the
Hon'ble Prime Minister's office. The testus of the said forged
letter Exh. 286 are required to be reproduced on record which
are related to the accused no. 1.
(Emblem)lR;eso t;rs
iz/kku ea=hPrime Minister
91 212 453646 GMT PUNE PUNE
D. O. No. 230-5/97New Delhi,July 24, 1997
17 R. C. C. No. 10/2003
My dear Shri Rajan,
My colleague Hon'ble opposition leader and Hon'ble
members of parliament apprised of reinstatement case of Smt.
Prabhavati Parkhi, C. T. O. Pune, pending decision since February
1985. she was removed arbitrarily from the service. Your
inexcusable delay in decision caused irreparable loss, she, should
be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits dues to
her forthwith.
With regards,
Yours faithfully,
( I.K. Gujral )
Shri C. V. Rajan,Chief General Manager – Telecom,Mumbai.
Copy for information -1. Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee
opposition leader,7, Safdarjung Road, New Delhi.
2. Shri Sharad Pawar, Leader (INC) Lok Sabha6, G. Rakbagang Road, New Delhi.
3. Shir Madan patil, M. P.37, South Avenus, New Delhi.
From the contents of this letter it is also clear that the accused
no. 1 was having intention to reinstate in the service with the
consequential benefits and she wanted to be reinstated with the
helf of said alleged letter. The accused nos. 1 and 2 who have
after the rejections of their appeal, illegally agreed and prepared
the said letter dated 24/7/1997 purportedly issued by Shri I. K.
18 R. C. C. No. 10/2003
Gujral, the then Hon'blel Prime Minister for which specific name
of accused no. 1 is existing.
26. The prosecution witness complainant Mr. C. Phunsong
who has narrated in his evidence at Exh. 647 that prima facie the
letter was found to be fake letter on two reasons -
(1) The personal section of the Hon'ble Prime Minister that
the Hon'ble Prime Minister had not written that letter,
(2) The Hon'ble Prime Minister does not write the letter like
to any Government functional.
27. The evidence given by this witness is not challenged by
the accused nowhere in the cross examination.
28. The intention of the accused since beginning to get
reinstatement by way of tendering the letter to the Chief Geneal
Manager of Telecom, Mumbai and for that reason they have
prepared the said letter.
29. The ingredients of section 120-B of Indian Penal Code is
that the accused nos. 1 and 2 having caused to get
reinstatement of accused no. 1 in the service hence they have
prepared the letter dated 24/7/1997 purportedly issued by Shri
I.K.Gujral, the then Hon'ble Prime Minister, and they have also
done unlawful act by tending it to the General Manager office
(development), Pune for sending its fax to the Chief General
Manager, Mumbai. Thus there is criminal conspiracy existed
which is proved by the prosecution. Hence, for the reasons
stated above, I hold that the accused have committed an offence
of criminal conspiracy by preparing the forged letter dated
19 R. C. C. No. 10/2003
24/7/1997 purportedly issued by Shri I.K. Gujral, the then Hon'ble
Prime Minister, and for which they are liable to be punished.
Hence, the point no. 1 is answered in affirmative.
AS TO POINT NO. 2. :-
30. The accused has been charged for the offence
punishable under section 468 of Indian Penal Code.
31. In order to prove the charge under section 468 of
Indian Penal Code the prosecution has to prove -
1. That the document is a forgery
2. That the accused forged the document,
3. That the accused did as above intending that the
forged document would be used for the purposes of
cheating.
32. It is alleged that both accused have prepared a forged
letter dated 24/7/1997 purportedly issued by Shri I.K. Gujral, the
then Hon'ble Prime Minister. In order to prove the charge under
section 468 the prosecution is required to prove that (a) the
documents letter dated 24/7/1997 is a forged document (b) the
accused have forged that document, (c) both accused have done
the forgery with intention that the forged document will be used
by them for the purpose of cheating to the Chief General
Manager C. V. Rajan.
33. In order to prove that the letter dated 24/7/1997 is
forged document the prosecution has examined the complainant
the Joint Secretary of the Hon'ble Prime Minister Mr. C. Phunsong
20 R. C. C. No. 10/2003
at Exh. 647. Being the Joint Secretary to the Hon'ble Prime
Minister Shri I. K. Gujral in the year 1997 he was posted in the
Hon'ble Prime Minister's office, New Delhi. The alleged letter
purportedly to have been written by the then Hon'ble Prime
Minister Shri I. K. Gujral was brought to his notice by the Personal
section to Prime Minister office.
34. It has come in his version that it was told to him that
Hon'ble Prime Minister had not written any letter which was a
fake letter. Hence being the serious nature of matter he had
issued a D. O. letter addressed to the Director of Central Bureau
of Investigation the apex investigating agency to have the matter
investigated urgently. After few months the officer of Central
Bureau of Investigation had come to his office too authenticate
his letter.
35. At Exh. 666 there is confirmation of authentication
statement given by the witness.
36. At Exh. 648 the said letter is produced which is dated
6/1/1997. The complainant has issued a letter including the
correspondence letter supposedly written Hon'ble Prime Minister
to the Chief General manager, Mumbai regarding the
reinstatement of accused no. 1 Prabhavati Parkhi, C. T. O., Pune.
It was mentioned in the letter that the said letter has been forged
with the help of apparently of someone having the access to the
Hon'ble Prime Minister's stationary. The witness Mr. C. Phunsong
has requested by this letter to investigate the matter
expeditiously and report be sent to the office at the earliest.
21 R. C. C. No. 10/2003
37. The accused much more argued on the point that there
is no complaint alleged to any police station and hence there is
no complaint against him in any police station. It is also argued
on behalf of the accused the complaint .i.e. F.I.R Exh. 652 does
not bear the signature of C. Phunsong. Hence, there is no
complaint by the complainant. If we perused the Exh. 652 it is a
typed complaint under section 154 of Cr. P. C. Crime is
registered RC3(S)/97-SCB -II, Delhi. Date and time of report on
22/12/1997 at about 11.45 a.m.. The place of occurrence with the
State mentioned as Delhi, Pune, Mumbai etc. The date and time
of occurrence is in the month of September 1997, the name of
the complainant is Mr. C. Phunsong, Joint Secretary, to the
Hon'ble Prime Minister office, New Delhi, under section 420, 511,
468, 471 of Indian Penal Code, the name of the accused is Smt.
Prabhavati Parkhi,, Central Telegraph office, Pune and others. In
the said complaint the contents of the letter Exh. 648 are
reproduced in it. The copy of Exh.652 was given to the Chief
Metropolitan magistrate, New Delhi, Joint Secretary Mr. C.
Phunsong, Deputy General of Police, Central Bureau of
Investigation, SCB, New Delhi-4, Mr. H. Sundersan, Principal
General Manager office Mumbai and Mr. Y. Harikumar, Inspector
of Central Bureau of Investigation and Investigating officer. In
Exh. 652 the Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of
Investigation appointed Mr.Y. Harikumar as investigating Officer.
It is aruged on behalf of the accused that Exh. 652 is not a
complaint as it does not discloses the name of accused no. 2.
38. Here I would like to consider the evidence given by
complainant at Exh. 647 who has stated in his chief examination
that fter he sent the letter to the Director of Central Bureau of
Investigation, the Central Bureau of Investigation Officer had
22 R. C. C. No. 10/2003
come to his office to authenticate the D. O. letter. He has
admitted the letter which was authenticated by him and signed
by him. The letter sent by him to Central Bureau of Investigation
to investigate urgently was in the name of his complaint.
39. As mentioned above Exh. 666 the statement of Mr.
C.Phunsong was recorded by Mr. J. C. Tiwari. In the said
statement Mr. C. Phunsong has mentioned that he had sent
complaint vide letter No. C-11011/47/97-PMA dated 6/11/1997 to
the Director of Central of Bureau of Investigation for investigation
regarding forged letter dated 24/7/1997 purportedly written by
Shri I. K. Gujral, the then Hon'ble Prime Minister to Mr. C. V.
Rajan, Chief General Manager, Mumbai relating to reinstatement
of one Smt. Prabhavati parkhi accused o. 1. After going through
the aforesaid complaint he confirmed that it is his signature in
the complaint dated 6/11/1997 and the contents of the complaint
are true. The cross examination of this witness is taken by the
accused. A suggestion was given by the accused no. 2 to the
witness referring the letter Exh. 648 with Outwad No. C-
11011/47/97/PMA means Hon'ble Prime Minister's Administration.
The complainant Mr. C. Phunsong has stated that whatever he
has sent the letter Exh. 648 is his complaint.
40. The provisions of section 154 of Cr. P. C. are in respect
of information to be given to the police in respect of cognizable
cases. The provisions of section 154 of Cr. P. C. are as follows -
154. Information in cognizable cases. - (1) Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer in charge of the police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant,
23 R. C. C. No. 10/2003
and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving if, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf.(2) A copy of the information as recorded under sub-section (1) shall be given forthwith, free of cost, to the informant. (3) any person aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an officer in charge of a police station to record the information referred to in sub-section (1) may send the substance of such information, in writing and by post to the Superintendent of Police, concerned who, if satisfied that such information discloses the commission of an cognizable offence, shall eitehr investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him, in the manner provided by this Code, and such officer shall have all the powers of an office in charge of the police station in relation to that offence.
41. The provisions of section 154 of Cr. P. C. are in respect
of giving the information to the police to take the action. It is only
the information to move the police authorities to do the
investigation in respect of the occurred cognizable offence.
42. In this case the complainant Joint Secretary to the
Hon'ble Prime Minister's office has issued a letter and also
admitting in the statement that the letter Exh. 648 is a
complaint. The Central Bureau of Investigation authority also
confirmed in view of Exh. 666 the authentication / the signature
of the complainant Mr. C. Phunsong. From which it can be safely
concluded that the F. I. R. Exh.652 and the letter Exh.648 which
is part and partial of Exh. 652 is the F. I. R. lodged by the Mr. C.
Phunsong is legal.
24 R. C. C. No. 10/2003
43. On the basis of said complaint the Superintendent of
Police of Central Bureau of Investigation, Mr. I. S. Saroha
entrusted the work of investigation to Mr. Y.Harikumar.
44. The prosecution examined the witness Mr. Y. Harikumar
at Exh. 651. According to him the F. I. R. was registered by Mr. I.
S. Saroha. It was registered on the basis of complaint given by
Mr. C. Phunsong .i.e. Exh. 648 and at Exh. 666. He had received
the letter with F. I. R. along with copy of written complaint of Mr.
C. Phunsong with annexures .i.e. forged letter of the then Hon'ble
Prime Minister Shri I.K. Gujral for investigation. Exh. 286 is the
fax of the letter dated 24/7/1997 which is already reproduced on
record. Exh. 652 bears the signature of Superintendent of Police.
The investigating officer Mr.Y. Harikumar found that the
beneficiary of the forged letter was accused no. 1 Smt.
Prabhavati Parkhi. The letter addressed to the Chief General
Manager, Mumbai. The witness Mr. Y.Harikumar contacted the
Chief General Manager and recorded his statement. During
investigation the witness Mr. H. Sundersan has received the fax
copy of the forged letter. Mr. H. Sundersan has intimated to the
witness Mr. Y. Harikumar that accused no. 2 met him in person
and made query about the reinstatement of his sister Smt.
Prabhavati Parkhi. It was also intimated that Mr. J. D. Parkhi had
also gone to the office of Chief General Manager and he had also
sent a fax of the copy of the disputed letter addressed to the C.
V. Rajan. Mr. H. Sundersan found suspect and he sent the copy
of that letter for verification. At that time the investigation was
handed over to the Inspector of Police Mr. J. J. Tiwari.
45. The witness Mr. J. C. Tiwari examined by the
prosecution at Exh. 659. According to this witness he had
25 R. C. C. No. 10/2003
received all papers of investigation from Mr. Y.Harikumar along
with case diary, F. I. R and other related correspondence. He had
obtained the search warrant in the name of Smt. Prabhavati
Parkhi from Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi. It was obtained
in respect of place of residence of Gokhale Nagar,, Maharashtra
Housing board, Pune. The issued search warrant is dated
1/6/1998 is produced at Exh. 665/784. The said warrant was
issued under section 93 of the Cr. P. C. for the search at
residential premises of Mr. Bhivajirao Parkhi the father of the
accused no. 1 at 11/395, Maharashtra Housing Board, Gokhale
Nagar, Pune. It was issued in respect of search of forged letter
and other incriminating documents to be recovered, materials
connected with the said offences registered under section 420,
511, 468, 471 of Indian Penal Code.
46. The arguments were submitted on behalf of the
accused that the search warrant execution is not legal as the
place of the search warrant mentioned at exh. 665 is different
than the where the actual search is done.
47. It is true that the provisions of section 93 of Cr. P. C.
are in relation to the issuing the search warrant in particular
premises.
48. The witness Mr. J. C. Tiwari, Investigating officer has
stated in his chief examination that when he had visited the
address of place of search warrant they came to know at the
time of execution of search warrant the accused nos. 1 and 2
have shifted from Gokhale Nagar residence to Police Wireless
Quarter, at Chauhan Nagar, Pashan, Pune. The said quarter was
belonging to the brother of accused no. 1. The witenss has
26 R. C. C. No. 10/2003
confirmed the residence in the wireless police quarter of
Chauhan nagar and they found that both accused were residing.
Thereafter they have conducted the search. In the search the
investigating officer seized the some incriminating documents.
There were number of applications written in the handwriting of
accused no.2 addressed to the various dignitaries like Hon'ble
Shri V. P. Singh, Hon'ble Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee and other
dignitaries. He has prepared the search list which is produced on
record in the police papers. The panchnama was drawn which is
at Exh. 531. Exh. 531 is the search list prepared by Mr. J. C.
Tiwari. The said panchnama was started at 15.00 hours and
concluded at about 6.30 p.m.. it bears the signature of P. Parkhi,
signatures of the panchas. The search warrant under section 93
of Cr. P. C. was issued by Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, in
respect of the place specified in it.
49. In view of the provisions of section 165 of Cr. P. C.
when the police officer is in charge of police station or police
officer doing any investigation and having reasonable grounds for
believing that anything for the purposes of investigation into any
offence which is authorized to investigate may found in any place
within the limits of the Police station of which he is in charge or
to which he is attached and that such thing cannot in his hand be
otherwise obtained without undue delay such officer may after
recording in writing the grounds of his belief and specifying any
such writing so far as believable, the thing for which search is to
be made, search, or cause search to be made for such thing in
place within the limits of such station. The investigating officer
has obtained the search warrant from Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Delhi to be executed at Maharashtra State at Pune in
order to search the original documents from the accused bearing
part of investigation.
27 R. C. C. No. 10/2003
50. The Delhi Police Establishment Act, 1946 is constituted
a special police force for investigation and to make provisions
superintendence and administration of the said force for the
extension of other areas. The powers and jurisdiction of the said
force in favour of the said offences. The act is having jurisdiction
to the extent of whole of India. In view of the provisions of
section 5 of the Delhi Police Establishment Act, 1946. The
extension of the powers and the jurisdiction of special police
establishment to other area is discussed. The provisions of
section 5 are as follows :-
5. Extension of powers and jurisdiction of special establishment to other areas – (1) The Central Government may be order extend to any area (including Railway areas), [in [ a State, not being an Union territory] the powers and jurisdiction of members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment for the investigation of any offences or classes of offences specified in a notification under section 3. (2) when by an order under Sub-section (1) the powers and jurisdiction of members of the said police establishment are extended to any such area, a member thereof may, subject to any orders which the Central Government may make in this behalf, discharge the function of a police officer in that area and shall while so discharging such functions, be deemed to be a member of a police force of that area and be vested with the powers, functions and privileges and be subject to the liabilities of a police officer belonging to that police force. (3) where any such order under sub-section )1_ is made in relation to any area, then, without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (2) any member of the Delhi Special Police Establishment of or above the rank of Sub-Inspector may subject to any orders which the Central Government may make in this behalf, exercise the powers of the officer in charge of a police station in that area and when so exercising such powers, shall be deemed to be an officer in charge of a police station discharging the functions of such an officer within the limits of his station.
28 R. C. C. No. 10/2003
51. In view of this provisions the search done by Mr. J.C.
Tiwari is not seems to be illegal.
52. In view of the Exh. 531 the seized documents by the
investigating officer were sent to the handwriting expert. The
reason for sending these documents was that the investigating
officer transpired that the accused no. 2 was in habit of writing
the letters to the big dignitaries. In the seized documents some
incriminating documents were also found. The seized documents
were number of applications written in handwriting of accused
no. 2 addressed to various dignitaries like Hon'ble V. P. Singh,
Hon'ble Atal Bihari Vajpayee and other dignitaries. The search
warrant report was submitted by Mr. J. C. Tiwari to Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi on 15/6/1998 and which was
accepted by the Court. The act of Mr. Tiwari is being
investigating Officer without delay he wanted to seizer the
document and accordingly he has done it.
53. The accused no. 2 was arrested on 27/07/1998. He was
in PCR for a period of five days after 30/7/1998. The transit
warrant was obtained by Judicial Magistrate First Class court No.
9, Pune by Mr. J. C. Tiwari to produce the accused before Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, link court Delhi on 30/7/1998. During
investigation the accused no. 2 has accepted the alleged forged
letter written by him purportedly written by the then Hon'ble
Prime Minister Shri I. K. Gujral, Prime Minister of India.
54. The accused has argued that the alleged original forged
letter dated 24/7/1997 is not produced on record by the
prosecution. It is true that the prosecution has not produced the
alleged original letter on record. But the original fax sent by the
29 R. C. C. No. 10/2003
accused no. 2 through Smt.Rajlaxmi, Senior Personal Assistant of
General Manager ( Development ) Pune is on record. Here I
would like to refere the evidence of Smt. B. Rajlaxmi who has
narrated at Exh. 494 in her chief examination she has stated that
after confirming with Mr. H. Sundersan whether to send the fax of
his letter or not she has sent the fax. She has stated that the
original letter was in her custody. Accused asked her to hand
over the said letter. She was not ready to hand over the same
but meanwhile accused forcefully taken back and went away. On
this point there is no cross examination taken by the accused.
For want of cross examination the given evidence is remain
unrebutted on record which cannot be disbelieved. Her evidence
discloses that accused no. 2 has taken the custody of original
letter. Even then he is arguing about whereabouts of original
letter.
55. In the evidence of the Investigating Officer he has
narrated in para no. 6 that Smt. B. Rajlaxmi has returned the
original letter on the request of the accused no. 2 to him. The
accused no. 2 immediately destroyed the original letter. Hence,
no merit in the argument of accused about non production of
original forged letter by prosecution on record.
56. The investigating Officer Mr. Jagdish chandra Tiwari has
narrated in the cross examination that the accused no. 2 was
working in A.I. R. India as a Junior Technical officer. He was
dismissed from the office. He also submitted in a letter
purportedly written by then Civil Aviation Minister J. B. Patnaik to
reinstate in the service. In this regard the case was registered
and the local police have filed the charge-sheet agianst accused
no. 2. On the technical ground he was adcquitted as the
30 R. C. C. No. 10/2003
Investigating has not obtained the specimen signatures of J. B.
Patnaik. He has also further narrated that the reason for
narrating history of the earlier case to bring on record the cause
of action along with the history of the accused. The accused has
nowhere cross examined further to the said witness on the said
point. Nor he has made attempt to produce any copy of the
judgment to discard the contentions of the investigating officer.
57. It has also come on record in the evidence of
Investigating Officer that he had obtained specimen signature of
Hon'ble Prime Minister Shri I. K. Gujral. During his investigation
he had taken the specimen signature of accused no. 2 and during
investigation he had seized the admitted handwriting of accused
no. 2 and forwarded all the seized admitted handwriting,
specimen signatures, specimen handwriting to the handwriting
expert. He has taken the blank letterhead as a specimen from
the office of Hon'ble Prime Minister's office. It was also sent to
the handwriting expert for opinion. The report sent from the
Central Forensic Science Laboratory, New Delhi dated 22/2/1998
was received by him which is at Exh. 746. It was transpired that
(1) signature in the alleged forged letter was not tallied with the
specimen signature of Hon'ble Prime Minister Shri I. K. Gujral (2)
the typing in the alleged letter were of two typewriters, (3) the
emblem portion of the alleged letter was not tallied with the
emblem letter of the specimen letter of Hon'ble Prime Minister's
letter.
58. Initially all seven applications were exhibited as S-32
but later on these applications were exhibited duly through the
evidence of Lavang Lata Sharma, the scientific assistant of
Central Forensic Science Laboratory, New Delhi at Exh. 683.
31 R. C. C. No. 10/2003
59. The contents of the letter were typed on more than one
typewriter. The national emblem appearing on the forged letter
was not tallied with the emblem of Prime Minister letter heads.
60. According to the Investigating officer the handwriting
expert reported all these applications which are marked as Exh.
686, 687, 688, 689, 690, 691, 692 and 693 found in the
handwriting of accused no. 2. The handwriting expert report
about the seized visiting register seized from the Chief General
Manager office is in the handwriting of accused no. 2, visitors slip
were also reported in the handwriting of accused no. 2.
61, In the cross examination the accused has not asked or
denied any questions about the said evidence. The evidence of
Investigating Officer is remain unrebutted.
62. In respect of the seizer of the documents and sending
to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, the Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate has passed the order on 30/9/1999 on
12/10/2000 the order is marked as exh. 664. The accused no. 2
had moved an application regarding of return of F. D. R. the
application is dated 29/7/1999. In the application there was
request to order to Central Bureau of Investigation to return the
property seized in search on 11/6/1998. The application
31/8/1998 alleged the contempt of Court has been committed by
the Investigating Officer by incorrect submission of in context on
application dated 5/8/1999 regarding filing of Challan before
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pune on 24/2/1999. The 4th
application was also moved on 29/7/1999 referring that the
charge-sheet filed before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pune for
which accused has been summonsed on 22/9/1999. The orders of
32 R. C. C. No. 10/2003
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate shows that the accused aware of
the seized documents from his possession for which he has not
challenged anything seizer panchnama. The Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Delhi has observed that the Court become functions
official on filing of the charge-sheet. The seized property was
become the case property. The direction was given to the
accused to move an application before the concerned court for
appropriate direction. In the order dated 12/10/2000 the Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate has also observed that the accused who
moved an application to exclude the original F. I. R. from the
record to be sent to Pune to expedite the letter dated 30/8/2000
of Judicial Magistrate First Class Court No. 4, Pune. The F. I. R.
received by the Predecessor of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
Court which was lodged on 22/12/1997. Considering these two
orders of C. M. M. Court, Delhi it appears that in respect of the
search warrant and seizer of the documents from the house of
the accused he has not challenged in any court, as the seized
documents were sent for handwriting expert opinion.
63. During investigation the number of handwritten
applications addressed to the various Politicians and Ministers
were seized from the house of accused no.1, which were related
to the reinstatement of accused no. 1. According to the
prosecution the motive behind forgery and using the letter was
to get reinstatement of the accused no. 1. Thus, both accused
have committed the offence of criminal conspiracy under section
120-B of Indian Penal Code and also committed the offence
punishable under section 420, 511, 471 of Indian Penal Code.
64. The handwriting expert opinion is given by Mr. T. R.
Nehara at Exh. 746. At Exh. 683 Lavang Lata Sharma the
Scientific Assistant deposed on oath. In her evidence she has
33 R. C. C. No. 10/2003
narrated that from 1993 she had joined office of Central Forensic
Laboratory. Mr. T. R. Nehara was the head of the documents
division. He was retired in the December 2003 and died on
11/12/2006. His death certificate is produced on record at Exh.
284. The procedure of her office about the receiving the
documents was that the Directors initially used to see the
documents and Directors used to assign the work to the head of
the department. The experts used to examine the documents
and submit the opinion. Experts used to prepare the report, sign
on it and sent to the Central Bureau of Investigation through the
Director. The papers of RC 3(S)/97/SCB-II/DLI were received by
her on the order of T. R. Nehara. She had open the papers which
were examined by Mr. T. R. Nehara. She has affixed the stamp on
each documents. She has identified the papers received by her
department as she had made stamp and exhibited it. The
documents enclosed along with Exh. 531 were sent by
prosecution for examination. The documents produced at
Exh.685 to 693 of which she has marked the seal as Q-12 to Q-
20. The another documents which were marked by her as S-22
to S-37and S-84 of which she has made signature being received
by their office. These documents are also marked as Exh. 694 to
738. The documents which she has marked as S-51, S-52, S-61,
S-62, Q-22, Q-21 all these documents of which she has made
stamp and seal. They are marked as Exh. 739 to 747. She has
stated that Mr. T.R. Nehara has examined the documents
mentioned above and submitted the report. She identified the
signature of T. R. Nehara as well as Director S. R. Singh. She has
worked with them from 1993 to 2003. Before here Mr. T. R.
Nehara ussed to sign and she had seen while signing report
which is produced at exh. 748. She identified the signature of T.
R. Nehara.
34 R. C. C. No. 10/2003
65. In view of the provisions of section 45 of the Evidence
Act, the opinion of the experts has to identify the handwriting
used to be taken. In this case to confirm the opinion the
handwriting expert opinion will be the evidence of opinion. The
evidence of handwriting expert will not be the sole base for the
conviction.
66. Here in this case the evidence of handwriting expert
opinion produced at exh. 748 required to be considered as
corroborative and supporting to the prosecution evidence.
67. In this case the prosecution witnesses has brought on
record criminal conspiracy of the accused nos. 1 and 2, for
preparing the forged document with intention to reinstate the
accused no. 1 in the service.
68. The seized documents by the Investigating officer and
sent to the handwriting expert .i.e.document Exh.686 which
discloses the reference of subject of reinstatement of post of
Telegraph Assistant, C. T. O, Pune having the refrence of Smt.
Prabhavati Parkhi .i.e. accused no. 1. the said letter addressed to
the Hon'ble V. P. Singh, 28,Lodhi Estate, New Delhi it is dated
22/07/1991. Further the letter Exh. 687 is also intended to be
written relating to the reinstatement of accused no. 1 addressed
to the Manager, Telecommunication, Mumbai. Exh. 688 is
addressed to Hon'ble Atal Bihari Vajpayee having the reference
of reinstatement order of 1988. The letter intended to be written
on 28/7/1991. Exh. 6890 is the written contents addressed to the
Hon'ble B. A. Adwani. It si mentioned as same as Mr. Singh. The
document Exh. 690 is addressed to the S. B. Chavan, Home
Minister, New Delhi relating to the accused no. 1 Prabhavati and
35 R. C. C. No. 10/2003
subject is reinstatement employment in the post of Telegraph.
The documents Exh. 692 it is a letter addressed to Shri Rajesh
Pilot, Minister of Communication on annexed subject is
absorption in the post of Telegraph Assistant in C. T. O, Pune
making same as Mr. Chavan. The document Exh. 693 addressed
to Sonia Gandhi intended to be written as same as Chavan
mentioned in the letter. These letters shows that the intention of
the accused to be written to get reinstatement. Even from the
naked eyes Act attracting the provisions of section 73 of the
Evidence Act. The handwriting existing in the above referred
documents and all the documents Exh. 284, 289, 290, the visitor
slip and letter are seems to be written and made by one and the
same person.
69. The specimen signature of Hon'ble Prime Minister Shri I.
K. Gujral is at Exh. 739 and 740. The specimen emblem of
Hon'ble Prime Minister is at Exh. 741, 742, 743, 744, 745 and the
forged document sent for comparison in which emblem is marked
as Exh. 746 and the signature of the then Hon'ble Prime Minister
Shri I. K. Gujral is marked as Exh. 747. The report submitted by
Central Forensic Science Laboratory is ata Exh. 748. it is reported
by T. R. Nehara that the authorship of the questioned signatures.
The xerox copy of which has been marked as Q21 could not be
connected with the writer of the specimen signature marked as
S-51 and S-52 attributed to Shri I. K. Gujral, the then Hon'ble
Prime Minister. The reasons are given as follows :-
I) The nature of eyelet formation at the top of capital letter
“I” as well as movement of the base curve as observed in
Q-21 is not similarly observed in any of the specimen
signatures.
36 R. C. C. No. 10/2003
II) There is sharp angularity at the foot of small letter “k” after
the capital letter “I” in all the specimen signatures whereas
such is not the case in the questioned signature. Similarly,
there is a sharp angularity at the top of the buckle stroke of
this letter in the specimen signatures whereas such is not
the case in the questioned signature.
III)The nature of start, shape of large eyelet formation, sharp
angularity at the top of the staff of capital letter “G” as
observed in the specimen signatures is not similarly
observed in the questioned signature.
IV)There appeared to be a clear pen stop after capital “G” in
the word Gujral and the next letter “u” has been written
with a separate start in the questioned signature marked
Q21 whereas such is not the case in the specimen
signatures.
V) The nature of sharp angularity in the body of small letter
“u” at its base as well as its terminal as observed in the
specimen signature is not similarly observed in the
questioned signatures.
VI)The dot of small letter “j” is present in all the specimen
signatures whereas the same is absent in the questioned
signature.
VII) Differences are also observed in the detailed
manner of execution of the letters j, r, a and I in the word
Gujral in the questioned and the specimen signatures.
Secondly in the said report at Sr. No. 10 relating to
emblem of the said letter it is reported that on supremo position
the xerox copy of the questioned printed matter marked as Q-22
do not match with specimen printed matter marked as S-61 to S-
65 in the general size and design of character comprising the
37 R. C. C. No. 10/2003
printed matter as revealed by video spectral comparator
examination. The report submitted at exh. 748 has much
disclosed about the sizer of documents from the accused are in
respect of the handwriting of the accused. The report in respect
of the visitor slip is also against the accused. The report
disclosed about the handwriting of the accused in respect of the
typing script. There is also report in clause IV of the report that
the specimen types script marked as S-82, S-83 have been typed
using the same typewriter and in view of the report clause V the
interse comparison of the questioned type script from Q-1 to Q-6
revealed that they have not been typed on one and the same
typewriter due to the reason given in the report.
70. From the evidence oral as well as documentary on
record it can be safely infer that the documents letter dated
24/7/1997 addressed to Mr. C. V. Rajan was not sent by the then
Hon'ble Prime Minister Shri I. K. Gujral nor it was sent on the
Prime Minister's office letterhead having the emblem of their
official not signed by Hon'ble Shri I. K. Gujral but the accused got
prepared the forged document. The accused have forged the
document is duly proved by the prosecution. The contents of the
document shows the intention of the accused for preparing the
forged document that it can be used for cheating purpose .i.e.
with the help of the said document addressed to mr.C. V. Rajan
they could have obtained the order of reinstatement from the
Chief General Manager, telecom Mumbai. I hold that the
prosecution has established the guilt of the committed offence of
preparing the forged document letter dated 24/7/1997 a letter
purportedly to be signed by the then Hon'ble Prime Minister Shri
I. K. Gujral addressed to C. V. Rajan with intention to cheat Mr. C.
V. Rajan. The ingredients of section 468 are duly proved by the
38 R. C. C. No. 10/2003
prosecution and hence I hold that the accused are liable to
punished for the offence punishable under section 468. Hence,
the point no. 2 is answered in affirmative.
AS TO POINT NO. 3.
71. The accused have also charged for having the criminal
conspiracy dishonestly and fraudulently using the forged letter
dated 24//7/1`997 by sending the fax from the Pune telecom
office to Mumbai Telecom office having knowledge that it was a
forged document.
72. The offence charged against the accused under section
471 of Indian Penal Code. The evidence has come on record by
witness Smt. Rajlaxmi at Ex. 494 that the accused has handed
over that original letter to her custody to send its fax. The forged
document is having the fax No. 91212453646 it discloses that it
is sent through General Manager, Telecom, Pune. The document
Exh. 286 was sent to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory
which discloses the contents of the typing emblem and signature
is forged one. It was dated 27/8/1997. The date is existing on
the said letter. Further the evidence given by Smt. B. Rajlaxmi is
unrebutted. The fax number is also mentioned in the complaint .
The accused have used the said forged letter purportedly not
producing the original with the Chief General Manager, Mumbai
or principal General Manager, Mumbai nor giving its custody to
Smt. B. Rajlaxmi but only it was used for sending its fax and
destroyed the original. The contents of the letter was also
beneficial to the accused no.1. The ingredients of section 471
are duly proved by the prosecution that the Exh. 286 is forged
one. Accused used it by sending fax having the knowledge that it
39 R. C. C. No. 10/2003
is forged one. They used it as genuine one. The onus of proving
the offence under section 471 on prosecution which is duly
discharged by the prosecution. The possession of the said
document must be with the accused as it is related to the
benefits of the accused no. 1 in it. As there is report from the
P.M.O.. not issuing the said letter that will be also one of the
ground to consider that the accused were having the knowledge
of forged document in their possession and used it as genuine.
They have dishonestly and fraudulently used being a genuine
document in order to have the intention to get benefit from it.
The accused were having mens rea while using it which is a
forged document. The evidence brought on record by the
prosecution attracts the provisions of section 471 to hold the
accused guilty under section 471. Hence, points for
determination no. 3 is answered in the affirmative.
AS POINT NO. 4.
73. The prosecution has established beyond doubt that the
document letter dated 24/7/1997 purportedly issued by the then
Hon'ble Prime Minister Shri I. K. Gujral is a forged document. The
contents of that document were addressed to the C. V. Rajan
relating to the accused no. 1 for her reinstatement in the service
that of consequential benefits dues to her forthwith.
74. The accused having the criminal conspiracy prepared
the forged letter for the purpose of cheating. It was also used by
sending a fax.
75. With due diligence of the officers of the Telecom
department the intention of the accused to cheat C. V. Rajan
40 R. C. C. No. 10/2003
may not be completed but the accused have made attempt to
cheat the Chief General Manager C. V. Rajan having the ill
intention in the mind to get reinstatement of accused no. 1 for
which they have prepared forged document tendered before the
concerned officer to cheat him. The Central Bureau of
Investigation has done proper investigation and filed the charge-
sheet against the accused at the place of commission of offefnce.
There is preparation done by the accused for attempting the
offence of cheating. The inquiry done by the Telecom department
and investigation done by the C. B.I. Obstructed the intention of
the accused to commit offence of cheating.
76. It is argued by the accused what was the loss caused to
the Telecom office. Accused no. 1 has not been reinstated nor
she has got any benefit of it. I am of the views that the accused
has forged the documents Exh.286 and he has also used it to
cheat Mr.C. V. Rajan. The fact is that the accused failed in his
attempt to cheat to C. V. Rajan with the help of forged letter the
accused intended to deceive the Chief General Manager for
obtaining the reinstatement order. He has also sent fax of the
same and hence I hold that the accused are guilty for attempted
to cheat C. V. Rajan. They have dishonestly and fraudulently
prepared and forged document. The attempt has been made by
the accused towards the commission of the offence of cheating
under section 420 of Indian Penal code by sending the fax
through the General Manager ( development ) officer.
77. I am of the view that from the evidence of prosecution
it can be concluded that the accused have in their mind designed
to commit an offence of cheating and they had begun to move
towards execution of the offence of cheating preparing a forged
41 R. C. C. No. 10/2003
document and using it under section 468, 471 and 420 of Indian
Penal Code of which the prosecution has established the
documentary evidence as well oral evidence.
78. The accused have designed in their mind the act of
cheating by preparing the forged document it becomes an
attempt of cognizable offence. The offence attempted and hence
I hold that the accused have committed an offence under section
420 of Indian Penal Code read with 511 Indian Penal Code and
point no. 4 is answered in affirmative.
79. For the above mentioned reason I hold that both
accused are guilty for committing an offence of criminal
conspiracy punishable under section 120-B of Indian Penal Code
and they are liable to be punished for committing forgery for the
purpose of cheating under section 468 of Indian Penal Code.
80. The accused have also used the forged document and
they are liable for the punishment under section 471 of Indian
Penal Code. They are also hold guilty under section 420 read with
511 of Indian Penal Code. Accused are liable to be punished for
the said offences. Before passing punishment I would like to hear
the accused on the point of sentence.
Pune. (Mrs. Suchitra S. Ghodke) Dt. 28/01/2011. Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Pune.
Accused are produced before me. They have been
informed the gist of the judgment and also informed that they
have been held guilty of the offence punishable under section
120-B, 468, 471, 420 read 511 of Indian Penal Code. The
42 R. C. C. No. 10/2003
opportunity has been given to say on the point of punishment.
The both accused have engaged the new Advocate on record
who has obtained the permission in view of Exh. 795 for filing the
Vakalatnama which is allowed. The advocate has submitted on
behalf of both accused lenient view may be taken and the
punishment of till rising of the court may be imposed.
82. Heard both parties. The Advocate on behalf of the
accused and Special Prosecutor for the C. B. I.. The social impact
of the time is against the public at large. The act of the accused
turpis. Preparing the forged document and using it for the benefit
which will be illegal was the intention of both accused. The
offence committed by both accused is of heinous type of
cognizable offence. What type of mentally of accused is there
discloses from the forged document. The evidence produced on
record by the prosecution is very genuine having the legal
sancity. The forged letter dated 24/7/1997 prepared by both
accused is not of a ordinary layman. How they dare to prepare
the document of designated person to whom the all nation used
to give the respect. The act of the forgery done by the accused is
not against that designated chairperson but it is offence against
the Government also. The intention in the mind of the accused to
commit this offence was only the selfishness to get the
reinstatement in the service. They were having the another
alternative the recourse to get the employment but the mense
rea existing with the accused is not of ordinary person. The
record also shows that after framing of the charge what type of
activities are done by the accused before the judicial forum.
Special prosecutor has submitted that the accused were jumped
the bail order. It is true that from the record anybody can see
that who has caused the delay in the proceedings after framing
43 R. C. C. No. 10/2003
of the charge. The case is of the year 1999. The record shows
that the accused no. 2 has conducted this matter in person for
accused no. 1. The nine Advocates are engaged by the accused
in this respect the order is below Exh. 1 in detailed. In respect of
the behaviour of the accused the number of orders below exh. 1
are existing. The orders existing on record in respect of
behaviour of the accused may not be considered for imposing the
punishment but it reflects the nature of the accused. The alleged
offences charged and duly proved by the prosecution are of
serious of nature. Establishing the guilt of the accused for the
offence punishable under section 120-B, 468, 471, 420 read with
511 of Indian Penal Code for which the final order will meet the
ends of justice. Though the Adv. For the accused submitted that
the accused are in jail hence, the benefit might be given to them.
I am of the view that the offence committed by the accused and
he himself caused delay in the proceeding even causing the
nuisance through out the trial. to the court of which there is
recording in the file. I do not find any legal ground to grant them
the benefit under section 428 of Cr. P. C. i.e. that is the period of
detention undergone for which set off may be given. The act of
the accused does not attract any leniency view to be shown. In
the result,
O R D E R
1. The accused (1) Smt. Prabhavati Bhiwaji Parkhi and (2)
Shri Jagannath Dnynoba Parkhi are hereby convicted
under section 248(2) of Cr. P. C. for the offence
punishable under section 120-B, 468, 471, 420 read
with 511 of Indian Penal Code.
44 R. C. C. No. 10/2003
2. The accused (1) Smt. Prabhavati Bhiwaji Parkhi and (2)
Shri Jagannath Dnynoba Parkhi are sentenced to suffer
Rigorous Imprisonment of seven years for the offence
punishable under section 468 of Indian Penal Code each
and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.20,000/- ( Rs. Twenty
Thousand ) each in default to suffer six months Simple
Imprisonment each.
2. The accused (1) Smt. Prabhavati Bhiwaji Parkhi and (2)
Shri Jagannath Dnynoba Parkhi are sentenced to suffer
Rigorous Imprisonment of seven years for the offence
punishable under section 471 of Indian Penal Code each
and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.20,000/- ( Rs. Twenty
Thousand ) each in default to suffer six months Simple
Imprisonment each.
3. The accused (1) Smt. Prabhavati Bhiwaji Parkhi and (2)
Shri Jagannath Dnynoba Parkhi are sentenced to suffer
Rigorous Imprisonment of seven years for the offence
punishable under section 120-B, 420, 511 of Indian
Penal Code each and sentenced to pay fine of
Rs.20,000/- ( Rs. Twenty Thousand ) each in default to
suffer six months Simple Imprisonment each.
4. The sentences shall run consecutively.
5. Already the sureties and bond are forfeited by this
court.
Pune. (Mrs. Suchitra S. Ghodke) Dt. 28/01/2011. Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Pune.
45 R. C. C. No. 10/2003
I affirm that the contents of this P. D. F. file Judgment are same word for word as per original Judgment. Name of Steno : Patil Shivaji N.Court Name : Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pune.Date : 28/01/2011.Judgment signed by Presiding officer on : 28/01/2011Judgment uploaded on : 28/01/2011