Delhi District Court
State vs Dal Sukh Etc on 9 July, 2025
IN THE COURT SH. ROHIT KUMAR
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS - 04: NORTH :
ROHINI COURT DELHI
Cr. Case 5288277/2016
STATE Vs. Dalsukh Etc.
FIR No. 429 /2001
PS Prashant Vihar
U/s: 420/409/468/471/120-B/34 IPC
JUDGMENT
A Registration Number 5288277/2016
B Name of the State
complainant
C Name of the accused & (1) Dalsukh
his parentage and S/o Sh. Bhimji Bhai
address R/o F 462, Raghuvir Nagar, Delhi.
and
(2) VPM Nair
S/o Sh. K P Menon
R/o 6/2 Varun Niketan AW Block,
Pitampura, Delhi
D Offence Complained of 420/409/468/471/120-B/34 IPC
E Date of commission of From November, 1999 onwards
offence.
F Date of Institution 17.07.2008
G Offence Charged 420/409/468/471/120-B/34 IPC
H Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty.
person
I Date of Pronouncement 09.07.2025
J Final Order Accused Dalsukh S/o Sh. Bhimji
Bhai and VPM Nair S/o Sh. K P
Menon stand acquitted for the
offenses u/s 420/409/468/471/120-
B/34 IPC.
FIR No. 429/2001 State vs Dalsukh and Etc. 1/34
ROHIT Digitally signed by
ROHIT KUMAR
KUMAR 16:50:47 +0530
Date: 2025.07.09
Vide this judgment the accused persons namely Accused Dalsukh
S/o Sh. Bhimji Bhai and VPM Nair S/o Sh. K P Menon are being acquitted of
the offence punishable under Section 420/409/468/471/120-B/34 Indian Penal
Code (hereinafter referred to as “the IPC“) in this case FIR No. 429/2001
Police Station Prashant Vihar for the reasons mentioned below.
1. CASE OF PROSECUTION:
It is the case of the prosecution that during the period November, 1999
onwards at office at Haiderpur Plant of Delhi Jal Borad, accused Dal Sukh
(cashier) and accused VPM Nair (UDC) while working in the Accounts
Branch of Delhi Jal Board had dominion over the salary accounts of various
workers and while doing their duty as cashier and UDC, they both in
furtherance of their common intention has committed breach of trust by
fraudulently debiting these accounts and committed embezzlement to the tune
of Rs.12 lacs and forged the salary bills intending that it shall be used for the
purpose of cheating and also forged documents and challan for the purpose of
embezzlement intending or having reason to believe that the said documents
are forged at the time of their presentation as genuine and you both induced
the complainant i.e. Delhi Jal Board on account of withdrawing money from
the salary accounts of the workers on your misrepresentation and caused
wrongful loss of Rs.12 lakhs to the complainant and wrongful gain to both of
you.
That based on these facts, it is the case of the prosecution that the
accused persons are stated to have committed an offence u/s.
420/409/468/471/120-B/34 IPC which led to registration of FIR No. 429/2001
at PS Prashant Vihar.
FIR No. 429/2001 State vs Dalsukh and Etc. 2/34
Digitally signed
ROHIT by ROHIT
KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2025.07.09
16:50:54 +0530
2. CHARGE:
In compliance of the procedural mandate u/s. 173 CrPC, charge-sheet
against accused persons was filed in the present matter, upon completion of
investigation.
Accused persons were summoned to face trial and was supplied with
the copy of the charge-sheet as per s. 207 CrPC.
Based on the charge-sheet, a charge for the offences punishable u/s.
409/468/471/420/34 IPC was framed against the accused persons, to which
they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. PROSECUTION EVIDENCE: –
3(a). PW-1 HC Harender deposed that on 04.09.2001, he was posted as
duty officer at PS and his duty hours were from 04:00 pm to 12 mid night. He
received rukka at about 5:10 am from SI Sultan. On receipt of which, he
registered the present FIR. He had brought the original FIR (OSR). Copy of
the same is Ex.PW-1/A. He also made endorsement on the rukka which is
Ex.PW1/B. Copy of FIR and rukka were handed over to SI Sultan.
3(b). PW-2 M P Aryan deposed that on 23.06.2001, he was posed at
Haiderpur Water Works as Executive Engineer, Electrical and Mechanical. On
that day, he came to know through LDC that an embezzlement in staff salary
bills of their Department. He reported the matter of their senior officer (CEO).
It was also revealed by their vigilance branch that approximately Rs.50,000/-
were being drawn in salary bills of workers every month and it was also
revealed that there was embezzlement of Rs.12,00,000/- approximately in the
office of Executive Engineer Office-II, Haiderpur. The above said amount was
over drawn without his knowledge. Two persons namely Dal Sukh (cashier
and VPM Nair UDC were responsible for that embezzlement. The aboves aidFIR No. 429/2001 State vs Dalsukh and Etc. 3/34
Digitally signed
ROHIT by ROHIT
KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2025.07.09
16:50:59 +0530
persons were interrogated by the vigilance wing of their department as well
by him. Rs.3,00,000/- were deposited by the above said accused persons.
Thereafter on 19.07.2001, he gave a complaint in writing to DCP Crime
which is Ex.PW2/A. Both the accused persons were present in the Court
(correctly identified by the witness).
3(c). PW3 P R Meena deposed that on 19.07.2001, he was posted as
Additional Director Vigilance at Delhi Jal Board, Delhi. Further deposed that
on that day, he received one complaint about the fraudulent withdrawal of
salary of the employees at Haiderpur, Water Treatment Plant-II, Delhi.
Thereafter, he along with the vigilance team including one officer Sh. Mishra
conducted the inquiry of this embezzlement. Further deposed that the
vigilance team collected the inquiry of this plant and after the preliminary
scrutiny, it was found that there was embezzlement of about Rs.12,00,000/-.
The embezzlement had been committed by two employees namely one Nair
UDC and Dal Sukh LDC. Further deposed that in the preliminary inquiry, he
found that about 50,000/- per months had been over drawn by these persons.
Further deposed that he was not able to identify accused persons due to lapse
of time.
During the examination in chief, Ld. APP for the State had drawn the
attention of the witness towards accused Dal Sukh and VPM Nair by pointing
out towards them and witness had correctly identified the accused persons.
He further deposed that he could not identify the accused persons at
first instance due to lapse of time.
During his examination, it was revealed that the preliminary inquiry
report conducted by Sh. P R. Meena (Vigilance team) was not on record.
Original statement of Sh. P . R. Meena u/s 161 Cr.P.C was also not on
record and there is only photocopy of the same on record.
FIR No. 429/2001 State vs Dalsukh and Etc. 4/34
ROHIT Digitally signed by
ROHIT KUMAR
KUMAR 16:51:04 +0530
Date: 2025.07.09
During the further examination of the PW P R Meena, Sh. Sunil
Kumar Singh, Administrative Officer Vigilance had produced document (1)
attested photocopy of preliminary investigation report of Vigilance
Department, JJB in the matter, containing 27 pages, (2) Attested photocopy of
report of Inquiring Authority in the departmental enquiry against Sh. VPM
Nair, UDC containing 08 pages and (3)Attested photocopy of report of
Inquiring Authority in the Departmental Inquiry against Sh. Dal Sukh, LDC,
containing 07 pages. Documents taken on record and same were collectively
marked as Mark C which bears signatures of Sunil Kumar Singh at point A.3(d). PW Arun Joshi deposed that he was working as Vigilance Inspector in
Vigilance Department, Delhi Jal Board, Delhi. Further deposed that on
12.05.08, he received a notice u/s 91 Cr.P.C by the IO to produce some
documents regarding the present case which is Ex. PW4/A which bears his
signature at point A. Further deposed that in compliance of the above said
notice he produced 5 documents which were seized by the IO vide seizure
memo which is Ex. PW4/B which bears his signature at point A and those
documents included 01 copy of appointment letter of both the accused
persons, 2. copy of transfer order of both the officials, 3 Original challan of
Rs. 3,00,000/- and 4 Further deposed that statement showing embezzlement
of both the accused and 5 Original specimen signatures of accused persons.
Further stated that he also told the IO regarding the nature of duties of the
accused persons The job of V. P. M. Nair was to record the pay order on salary
bills. V. P. M. Nair used to enter the increased amount in the pay order and
thus committed embezzlement and after getting the pay order prepared and
signed by the officer he used to hand over those pay orders to Cashier
Dalsukh Dalsukh used to prepare cheque and withdraw cash from the Bank on
the basis of above said pay order. Further deposed that in this way they used
FIR No. 429/2001 State vs Dalsukh and Etc. 5/34
ROHIT Digitally signed
by ROHIT KUMAR
KUMAR 16:51:10 +0530
Date: 2025.07.09
to withdraw more amount then actual and used to distribute between
themselves and both the accused persons embezzlement the amount from
10,000 to 50,000/- in different months. Further deposed that in this way both
the accused persons committed embezzlement of amount of apprx. Rs.
10,30,000/- and out of which two challans of Rs. 3,00,000 and Rs. 50,000/-
was deposited by the accused persons. Further deposed that IO recorded my
statement. Witness correctly identified the accused during his examination
before the court. Further deposed that the specimen signatures of accused
Dalsukh was taken in his presence and he never met accused V. P. M. Nair
therefore he cannot identify him.
3 (e) PW5 HC Devi Dutt deposed that on 20.11.2001, he was posted at P. S.
Pr. Vihar as Constable. Further deposed that on that day, he joined the
investigation in the present case. Further deposed that on that day, he
alongwith IO SS Meena went to the house of accused Dalsukh where IO
arrested accused Dalsukh vide memo Ex. PW5/A and also conducted his
personal search vide memo Ex. PW5/B both bear his signatures at point A.
Further deposed that IO recorded his statement.
Witness correctly identified the accused during his examination before
the court.
3 (f) PW-6 Sh. Rajesh Kumar deposed that he does not remember the exact
date, month or year but on that day police came to house of accused Dalsukh
and arrested him wide arrest memo already Ex. PW5/A and also conducted
his personal search vide memo already Ex. PW5/B both bear his signature at
point B. Further deposed that IO recorded his statement.
Witness correctly identified the accused during his examination before
the court.
FIR No. 429/2001 State vs Dalsukh and Etc. 6/34
Digitally signed
ROHIT by ROHIT
KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2025.07.09
16:51:17 +0530
Ld. APP for the State sought the permission to cross examine the above
said witness on the point of date of arrest of accused.
During his examination before the court by the Ld. APP for the State,
statement of witness u/s 161 Cr. PC Mark-Z was read over and explained to
him in vernacular.
During examination by the Ld. APP for the State, he deposed that he
cannot tell whether the date of arrest of accused was 20.11.01 and was
confronted with statement Mark-Z where date has been recorded. He denied
that he has been won over by the accused that is why is deposing falsely.
3(g) PW-7 Sh. Mahaveer Singh deposed that he was working as Jr.
Accountant at the plant second of Delhi Jal Board, Haiderpur from the year
1993 to December, 2000 Accused was working as Assistant Cashier while
accused VPM Nair who was UDG was working as Accounts Clerk Accounts
Clerk used to check pay bills of salary and the job of Assistant Cashier was to
withdraw the money from the bank on the basis of cheques of salary. My job
was to sign the pay orders after the same was checked by Accounts Clerk.
Further deposed that the scam related to present case was highlighted after
about six months of his transfer from Haiderpur plant to Najafgarh and police
never recorded his statement in relation to present case. Accused Dalsukh and
V PM Nair are present in court today (correctly identified)
Ld. APP requested to cross examine the witness as he was not coming
up with complete facts.
During the cross-examination by the Ld. APP for the State witness
deposed that the his statement was recorded by the IO u/s 161 Cr.P.C. is in
VRK and therefore, the same may be summoned as Ld. Counsel for accused
has put objections stating that the witness may be cross-examined and
confronted with the aforesaid statement only if the statement in original is
FIR No. 429/2001 State vs Dalsukh and Etc. 7/34
Digitally signed
ROHIT by ROHIT
KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2025.07.09
16:51:23 +0530
shown to him.
3(h) PW8 Sh. B K. Walia deposed that he is living at the above said address
for the last 20 years, he is working senior Account Officer in Delhi Jal Board.
From the year 1998 and even prior accused Sh.V.P. M. Nair, UDC he was
working as accounts clerk and performing the duties of recording Pay order
on the bills of staff, like salary bills, over time, additional wages and other
miscellaneous bills pertaining to staff and also check the bills of contractors
and record pay orders and also disbursed the salaries or staff. Further deposed
that the another co-accused Sh. Dalsukh, LDC/Cashier used to go to bank to
collect the cash from the bank(state bank, Chandini chowk branch) against the
cheques issued in lieu of salaries and other miscellaneous payments payable
to staff and maintained record for the same like petti cash book and other
records related to cash etc. Further deposed that the accused V.P.M.Nair used
to go to bank with Dalsukh/co-accused to collect the cash from the bank and
disbursed the salary of the employees of that voucher which was manipulated
by him and the said amount was approximately Rs. 0,000/- per month during
his tenure at that time. Further deposed that the total amount was
approximately Rs. 12 lacs and the accused Mr.VPM Nair and Dalsukh made
cheating of the salary amount which was for the salary of the employees and
both the accused made the cheating of approximate of Rs.12 lacs. Further
deposed that he had narrated the whole incident the police officials and the
same was recorded by the police official.
3(i) PW 9 Inspector Ved Prakash deposed that on 01.02.2008. Further
deposed that he was posted as Sl at PP Rohini Court, PS Pr. Vihar as Incharge
of PP. Further deposed that on that day, the present case was marked to him
for further investigation. Further deposed that on 12.05.2008, he visited the
FIR No. 429/2001 State vs Dalsukh and Etc. 8/34
Digitally signed
by ROHIT
ROHIT KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2025.07.09
16:51:49 +0530
office of Delhi Jal Board and he met Insp. Vigilance of Delhi Jal Board
namely Arun Joshi who conducted the inquiry in the present matter. He
further deposed that also served notice to Arun Joshi u/s 91 Cr.PC for
producing certain documents required in this case and the notice is already
Ex. PW-4/A which bearing his signature at point B. Further deposed that he
had also obtained the specimen signatures of the accused Dalsukh in the
presence of Sh. Arun Joshi in their office after getting the consent of the
accused.
During the examination, one scaled envelop duly sealed with the seal of
FSL was produced by the concerned Ahlmad of this court, since the FSL
result has been filed in the court by the IO after filing of the main charge sheet
of this case. Further the envelop is open with the permission of the court.
Further deposed that the specimen signatures of accused Dalsukh and
of accused Vipin Natvar, questioned and admitted signatures of both the
accused contained in salary bills/payment vouchers, Application for
departmental proceedings under rule 14 CCS (CCA) rules against Dalsukh,
applications for request for re-instatement of service of V.P.M. Nair and other
documents of Delhi Jal Board and one sealed envelop of FSL addressed to the
SHO PS Pr. Vihar are taken out. Further deposed that the sealed envelop is
opened which is found containing forwarding letter and the FSL report/result.
Further deposed that the questioned signatures of both accused
available in salary/payments bills were produced by Deputy Director of
Vigilance Sh. V.P. Tanvar to the SHO PS Pr. Vihar vide his forwarding letter
Ex. PW-9/A. Further deposed that the specimen signatures of Dalsukh which I
obtained are collectively Ex. P-1 (running into 5 pages) bears his signatures at
point A on each page. Further deposed that he had also obtained the specimen
signatures of accused V.P.M. Nair. Further deposed that the said specimen
signatures of accused V.P.M. Naiyar are Ex. P-1(colly) (running into 5 pages)FIR No. 429/2001 State vs Dalsukh and Etc. 9/34
Digitally signed
ROHIT by ROHIT
KUMAR
KUMAR 16:51:54
Date: 2025.07.09
+0530
bears my signature at point A respectively and the FSL report/result is Ex. P-
3.
Further deposed that on 17.05.2008, Arun Joshi came at PP Rohini
Court and ed the requisite documents which he sought from him through 0891
Cr.PC. Further deposed that he had seized the said documents produced by
Arun Joshi vide seizure memo already Ex. PW-4/B which bears his signature
at point B and the said documents were No.1 copy of appoint letter of both the
accused persons, No.2 Copy of transfer order of both the accused. No.3
Original Challan of Rs. 3 lakh. No.4 statement showing embezzlement done
by both the accused, No.5 Original admitted signatures of both the accused.
Further deposed that the said documents were produced to him vide
forwarding letter Ex. PW-9/B and the said documents are collectively Ex. P-4
(consisting of copy of appointment letter, copy of transfer order, original
challan of Rs. 3 lakh (already marked as Mark-A).Further deposed that
statement showing embezzlement and the original admitted signatures of both
accused in application for re-instatement and departmental proceeding
application). Further deposed that he recorded statement of Insp. Vigilance
Arun Joshi u/s 161 Cr.PC.
PW Inspector Ved Prakash deposed that he has sent the admitted
signatures of both accused to FSL which were provided to him by Arun Joshi
and which are available in the original application of the accused persons in
their application for re-instatement and application regarding departmental
proceedings. Further deposed that the said documents are Ex. P-5 collectively
(which are given numbering as A-1 to A-5 by him before sending the same to
FSL). Further deposed that on 27.05.2008. Further deposed that he submitted
all the relevant documents i.e. specimen signatures of both accused, their
admitted signatures, questioned signatures alongwith salary bills/payments
bills in the FSL on 27.05.2008. Further deposed that the salary bills/payment
FIR No. 429/2001 State vs Dalsukh and Etc. 10/34
Digitally signed
ROHIT by ROHIT
KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2025.07.09
16:52:05 +0530
bills were marked by me as 9-1 to 9-24 and 9-66 to 9-84 of accused V.P.M.
Nair and Q-25 to 9-65 of accused Dalsukh and the salary bills are collectively
Ex. P-6.
3(j) PW-10 PW ASI Ravinder deposed that on 27.05.2008, he was posted as
Ct. at PS Pr. Vihar. Further deposed that on that day upon the directions of the
IO Ved Prakash. Further deposed that he took the documents of the case to
FSL Rohini and deposited the same in the FSL vide memo No. 703/R-SHO
Pr. Vihar and after depositing the same, he handed the
receipt/acknowledgement slip to the IO which is Ex. PW-10/A and his
statement was recorded by the IO.
3(k) PW Sh. Y K. Sharma deposed that he had been retired from the post of
Assistant Commissioner. Delhi Jal Board on 30.04.2014. Further deposed that
on 03.07.2001, when he was working as Head Cashier in Delhi Jal Board at
Head Quarter Treasury Jhande Walan, Delhi. Further deposed that on that day
Mr. Dalsukh and V.P.M. Nayar had deposited Rs. 3 lakh (three lakhs) through
Remittance Challan of division, EE (E & M). Haidarpur Water Works when
allegation regarding embezzlement had made out against them.
3(l) PW ASI Satyavan deposed that on 28.11.2001, he was posted as HC at
PS Pr. Vihar. Further deposed that on that day Zalengwith IO. Further deposed
that SI S.S. Meena and Mahaveer Singh, Junior Accountant DJB went to the
house of accused VPM Nair and at the instance of Mahaveer Singh accused
VPM Nair was arrested and personally searched vide memos Ex. PW-11/A
and PW-11/B positively. Further deposed that his statement was recorded by
IO.
This witness correctly identified by the accused during his examination
FIR No. 429/2001 State vs Dalsukh and Etc. 11/34
Digitally signed by
ROHIT ROHIT KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2025.07.09
16:52:10 +0530
before the court.
3(m) PW Inspector Praveen Kumar deposed that on 11.05.2005, he was
posted at PS Pr. Vihar as St. and on that day investigation of the present case
was marked to him and during investigation, he had written several letter to
Delhi Jal Board Authorities for collection of some original documents and
their vigilance record. Further deposed that he had also received some
document from Delhi Jal Board and also recorded the statement of one
witness Mahabir Singh, EE u/s 161 Cr.PC. On 04.10.2007. Further deposed
that he has had handed over the case file to MHCR.
3(n) PW Sunil Kumar Singh deposed that 19.06.2008, he was posted as
Administrative Officer, Vigilance DJB. Further deposed that IO of the case
met him in his office and inquired him about the letter No.
DJB/VIO/16/2008/2480 dated 15.05.2008 and he stated to that the said letter
was prepared by him which is already Ex. PW-9/B bears his signature at point
A and that he had sent the said letter alongwith the enclosed documents
mentioned in the letter to the IO through Arun Joshi, Insp. Vigilance. Further
deposed that the enclosed documents are already collectively Ex. P-4 which
were provided by him to the IO through Arun Joshi. Further deposed that the
original challan of Rs. 3 lakh was also provided by him to the IO vide above
said letter as enclosed document. Further the original challan is already Ex. P-
4 with other documents (colly). Further deposed that the original challan bears
the signatures of accused Dalsukh at point A and the signatures of Junior
Accountant at point B. Further deposed that he had also certified/attested
those documents which bears his office seal and signatures at point A
respectively on each pages.
Further deposed that in response to the court notice dated 30.04.2012
FIR No. 429/2001 State vs Dalsukh and Etc. 12/34
Digitally signed
by ROHIT
ROHIT KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2025.07.09
16:52:16 +0530
issued by Hon’ble Court of Sh. Manish Khurana. Ld. MM he had provided the
attested copies of 1. preliminary investigation report of Vigilance Department.
DJB. 2. attested photocopy of report of inquiring authority in the departmental
inquiry against accused V.P.M. Nair, 3. attested photocopy of report of
inquiring authority in the departmental inquiry against accused Dalsukh vide
my letter No DJB/VIG/17 (6/7)/2012/4439 dt. 17.07.2012 and the said letter
is Ex. PW-12/A bears his signature at point A. Further deposed that the
enclosed documents preliminary investigation report of Vigilance
Department, DJB, 2. ed photocopy of report of inquiring authority in the
departmental ity against accused V.P.M. Nair, 3. attested photocopy of report
of airing authority in the departmental inquiry against accused Daisukh are
collectively Ex. PW-12/B which are attested by him bearing his office seal
and signature at point A on each page.
This witness correctly identified the both accused persons present
during his examination before the court.
3(o) PW Sh. Anurag Sharma, Assistant Director RFSL, Chankya Puri,
Delhi deposed that Tam M.Sc. In Chemistry having about 26 years experience
in the field of examination of forensic exhibits and till date he had examined
and reported approximately 1800 cases including sands of exhibits and
deposed in so many courts as expert. Further deposed that in the month of
2008, he was posted as Senior Scientific Officer documents at FSL Rohini,
Delhi. Further deposed that he remained there at FSL Rohini till the year
2015. Further deposed that in this case on 27.05.2008 exhibits in 18 sheets
and one volume were deposited in our laboratory at FSL Rohini through SHO
PS Pr. Vihar vide memo No. 703-R/SHO/Pr. Vihar dated 27.05.2008. Further
deposed that the exhibits bearing markings as Q-1 to 9-84 (questioned
documents), S-1 to S-5. A-1, A-2 (specimen and admitted signatures ofFIR No. 429/2001 State vs Dalsukh and Etc. 13/34
Digitally signed
ROHIT by ROHIT
KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2025.07.09
16:52:22 +0530
Dalsukh) and S-6 to S-10. A-3 to A-5 (specimen and admitted signatures of
V.P.M. Nair).
Further deposed that he had examined all the exhibits thoroughly and
scientifically with the help of various scientific instruments available in our
laboratory and rendered his opinion which is already Ex. P-3 which bears his
signatures at point A and B respectively on both the pages. Further deposed
that the specimen signatures documents of accused Dalsukh are already Ex. P-
1 (colly) and that of accused V.P.M. Nair are already Ex. P-2 (colly). Further
deposed that the other admitted signatures of accused Dalsukh marked as A-1
on the letter made by Dalsukh is already Ex. P-5 and other hand as A-2 of
accused Dalsukh is now Ex. P-7 enclosed with the Letter Ex. P-5. Similarly
the admitted signatures of V.P.M. Nair on the applications Ex. P-8. P-9 and P-
10 were marked as A-3. A-4 and 4-8 The one volume referred by me above
consists of various salary /vouchers of Delhi Jal Board which were having
marking as Q-1 10 -24. Q-66 toQ-84 of V.P.M. Nair and Q-25 to Q-65 of
Daisukh. The said volume/salary bills are already Ex. P-6 (colly). The
marking was already done by investigating agency over the above said
exhibited documents when I received the same and I retained the same
marking for comparison/examination.
The gist of his report Ex. P-3 is as follows:
1. The signatures marked Q-25 to 9-65 as well as S-1 to S-5. A-1 and A-2 all
have been written by one and the same person i.e. by Dalsukh.
2. No opinion could be expressed on questioned signatures marked 9-1 to 9-
24 and Q-66 to 9-84 on comparison with S-6 to S-10 and A-3 to A-5 i.e. by
V.P.M. Nair.
FIR No. 429/2001 State vs Dalsukh and Etc. 14/34
ROHIT Digitally signed by
ROHIT KUMAR
KUMAR 16:52:28 +0530
Date: 2025.07.09
After examination and report, all the original documents alongwith
original report were handed over to the authorized massenger of the
forwarding authority in a sealed envelop duly sealed with the seal of
DOC.FSL. The said documents and my report was accompanying with the
forwarding letter No. FSL-2008/D-1870/6644 dated 20.09.2010 which is Ex.
PW-13/A bears the signatures of Director at point A.
3(p) PW Insp Ved Prakash No. D-1/288, Traffic, Todapur, Delhi deposed
that I was deputed as IO in the present matter from 01/02/2008 to filing of the
initial charge-sheet. Further deposed that he had seized some documents in
the present case as per seizure memos on record and original challans related
to cash book are also on record, which were sent to FSL for examination.
Further, he had not seized any petty cash book in the present matter.
PW Praveen IO/Inspector Parveen deposed that he was the IO in the
present case and he was summoned before the court to bring on record petty
cash book. Further deposed that the same was never seized by him.
In his defence, DW1 Dal Sukh deposed that he had joined Delhi Jal
Board in 1995 in Pitampura Office as LDC and he was allotted work of
dispatch and diary. Further deposed that in the year 1996, he was transferred
to Haiderpur Water plant as LDC and he was doing the work of dispatch and
diary. Further deposed that in the year 1997 the cashier working in the
Haiderpur plant had been transferred to other office and thereafter, he was
directed by Executive Engineer cum DDO to do the work of cashier till
someone could be joined in that post and at that time, Junior Accountant and
Account Clerk used to give him Salary Cheque amount to withdraw the
amount from the bank. Further deposed that he used to go the bank along with
Senior Account Clerk and Security Guard and after withdrawing the amount
from the bank, he used to keep the amount in the Almirah of Account clerk.
FIR No. 429/2001 State vs Dalsukh and Etc. 15/34
Digitally signed
ROHIT by ROHIT
KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2025.07.09
16:52:32 +0530
Amount was used to be kept on the almirah of account clerk as per the
direction of Action and Junior Accountant. Since the action room where the
chest was kept is far from the account where the salary used to be disbursed
amongst the employees as per salary bills and paid vouchers. Further deposed
that the salary bills and paid vouchers contain the name of employees and
their respective salary amount.
Further deposed that the document Ex. P-6 ( colly) is already on record
in a sealed cover and same was opened with permission of the court. The
salary bills Ex. P-6 (colly) were prepared from Establishment Section of
Haiderpur, Delhi Jal Board by Clerk/LDC andAfter preparation of salary bills
the same was scrutinized by Head Clerk and DDO (Executive Engineer).
Thereafter, the said bills came to the Account Section for preparation of pay
order. Further deposed that in the account section, the Account Clerk after
scrutiny the salary bills and accounting the whole salary amount of 3-4 salary
hills used to prepare a single pay order, which was approved Junior
Accountant, Senior Accountant and Executive Engineer. Further deposed that
he had no role to prepare either salary hill or pay order. Further deposed that
he did not prepare any document regarding salary bill, pay order for the
purpose of disbursement of salary of the employees of Delhi Jal Board,
Haiderpur-11 (HP-II).
Further deposed that he did not prepare salary bills paid voucher at any
point of time and the same was prepared by the Establishment Section.
Further deposed that he did not disburse the salary of the employee on the 1st
day when the salary of the employees were distributed and first day of the
salary distribution, same was disbursed by the account clerk with the help of
other staff. Further deposed that he only used to disburse the salary of those
employee who could not collect the salary on the first day of salary
disbursement date and after disbursement of salary on the first day, the
FIR No. 429/2001 State vs Dalsukh and Etc. 16/34
ROHIT Digitally signed by
ROHIT KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2025.07.09
16:52:38 +0530
remaining undisbursed salary was handed over to him by Account Clerk after
approval of Junior Accountant. Further deposed that the details of the said
undisbursed salary was maintained in petty cash book, which was already
with the department. Further deposed that it was falsely alleged against him
that he has returned Rs. 3,50,000/- through challans in the Jal Board. Further
deposed that he did not know who had deposited the said amount with the
Treasury of Delhi Jal Board. Further deposed that he has been falsely
implicated in the present case only in order to save the other senior employees
of Delhi Jal Board, who have prepared all the documents regarding the
disbursement of salary to the employees of Delhi Jal Board, HP-II. Further
deposed that he has been victimized by the officials of Delhi Jal Board and he
is innocent and did not do any work against the department.
4. STATEMENT OF ACCUSED:
In order to allow the accused persons to personally explain the
incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against them, the
statement of the accused persons were recorded without oath under Section
251 Cr.P.C and 313 CrPC wherein they have stated that they have been falsely
implicated in this case.
5. APPLICABLE LEGAL PROVISIONS:
5(a). 420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.–
Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to
deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or
any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and
which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished
with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven
years, and shall also be liable to fine.
FIR No. 429/2001 State vs Dalsukh and Etc. 17/34
Digitally signed
by ROHIT
ROHIT KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2025.07.09
16:52:43 +0530
5 (b) Section 409 – Criminal breach of trust by public servant, or by
banker, merchant or agent- Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with
property, or with any dominion over property in his capacity of a public
servant or in the way of his business as a banker, merchant, factor, broker,
attorney or agent, commits criminal breach of trust in respect of that property,
shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable
to fine.
5(c) Section 468 Forgery for purpose of cheating
-Whoever commits forgery, intending that the document or electronic record1
forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven
years, and shall also be liable to fine.
5(e). Section 471. Using as genuine a forged document or electronic
record.–Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any
[document or electronic record] which he knows or has reason to believe to be
a forged [document or electronic record], shall be punished in the same
manner as if he had forged such [document or electronic record.
5 (f) Section120B – Punishment of criminal conspiracy –(1) Whoever is a
party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death,
imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or
upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the
punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had
abetted such offence.
(2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal
conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished
with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months,
or with fine or with both.
FIR No. 429/2001 State vs Dalsukh and Etc. 18/34
ROHIT Digitally signed by
ROHIT KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2025.07.09
16:52:50 +0530
6. APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE AND MARSHALLING OF
THE FACTS:
6(i).In this matter brief allegation against the accused are that from the period,
November 1999 onwards at office of Haiderpur Plant of Delhi Jal Board, both
accused persons namely Dalsukh and V.P.M Nair while working as cashier
and UDC respectively in the accounts branch of Delhi Jal Board had
dominion over the salary accounts of various workers and while doing the
duty as cashier and UDC, both accused persons in their common intention and
committed the breach of trust by fraudulently debited these accounts and
committed the embezzlement to the tune of Rs 12 lakh, and have also forged
the salary bills and thereafter said bills were used for the withdrawal of
money from the salary accounts of the workers. Accordingly accused persons
had committed the offense under section 409/468/471/420/120B/34 IPC.
In this matter, case was registered on the complainant of M.P. Aryan
then Executive Engineer in the Haiderpur Plant. It was alleged in the
complaint of the Mr. M P Aryan that during the initial investigation, it was
noticed that approximately Rs. 50,000/- have been drawn in the salary bills of
the worker in every month. It was also alleged that about Rs. 12 Lakhs have
been over drawn by manipulation in the bills without the knowledge of the
complainant. It was also alleged that accused V P M Naair was the King pin
and master mind who has done the manipulation of the documents and
managed to embezzle the amount every month. During the trial, complainant
Mr. M P Aryan was examined before the court as PW2. It was deposed by
PW2 before the court on 23.06.2001, he was posted at the abovementioned
water plant as Executive Engineer (Electrical and Mechanical). It is deposed
that he came to know through LDC that an embezzlement of salary bills of
their department has been done. It is deposed that two persons namely Dal
FIR No. 429/2001 State vs Dalsukh and Etc. 19/34
Digitally signed
ROHIT by ROHIT
KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2025.07.09
16:52:58 +0530
Sukh then Cashier and VPM Nair then UDC were responsible for the
embezzlement.
During the cross-examination of the witness by the Ld. counsel for
accused V P M Nair, he deposed that job of accused VPM Nair was to correct
the salary bills and to assist the cashier. During the cross-examination done by
the Ld. Counsel for the accused Dalsukh, it was deposed by PW2 that salary
slip in their department used to be prepared by establishment Section which
includes UDC and Head Clerk and thereafter, same used to forward to the
Account Section for purpose to scrutinize the same.
It is pertinent to mention that this deposition before the court is
suggesting that only accused VPM Nair was not responsible for the
preparation of the salary slip in the department, it was the duty of the Head
Clerk and Accounts Section also to scrutinize the salary of the workers.
PW 2 also deposed before the court that at that time, salary slips were
used to prepare in hand writing and there were no computers available for the
said purpose. Further deposed that salaries were given to the employees
directly and were not deposited in their account. Further deposed that duties
of disbursement of salary was of cashier with the help of UDC.
It is pertinent to mention that during the cross-examination vide dated
28.04.2012, matter was adjourned for the want of documents regarding the
assignments of duties of the accused persons. Thereafter, PW was recalled for
the examination again before the court on 18.07.2012. On 18.07.2012, PW2
placed on record two copies of documents to show nature of duties of both
persons and same were exhibited before the court as PW2/B and PW-2/C
respectively. Perusal of these two documents reflected that accused VPM Nair
was handed over the charge of UDC dt 02.04.1998 and accused Dal Sukh was
posted as Assistant Cashier in the department on 25.06.1997. It is pertinent to
mention that perusal of these exhibits, nowhere reflected the nature of the
FIR No. 429/2001 State vs Dalsukh and Etc. 20/34
Digitally signed
ROHIT by ROHIT
KUMAR
KUMAR 16:53:03
Date: 2025.07.09
+0530
work of the accused persons. Only designation of accused persons are
mentioned.
PW2 further deposed that the name of the Head Clerk was Munshi
Ram and Jr. Accountant was Mr. Walia. PW2 deposed before the court the job
of preparation of pay order was not of the accused Dal Sukh.
It is pertinent to mention that this deposition is clearly reflecting that
there was no involvement of accused Dal Sukh in preparation of pay orders.
In this matter, another witness namely Mr. P R Meena was examined
before the court as PW3, who was posted as a Addl Direction Vigilance at
Delhi Jal Board on 19.07.2001. It was deposed by PW3 that on receiving the
complaint, he alongwith vigilance team including one officer Mr. Mishra
conducted the inquiry of embezzlement and collected the reports from
Haiderpur plant. Further deposed that after the preliminary scrutiny, it was
found that there was embezzlement of Rs. 12 Lakh and same was committed
by both accused herein.
PW3 during his cross-examination conducted by Ld. Counsel for the
accused Dal Sukh deposed that during the inquiry conducted in the year 2001,
their team covered the period of embezzlement from the year 1998-2001. It
was deposed by PW3 that pay order can be encashed from bank only if same
are signed by DDO. Further deposed that he cannot say whether pay orders
were countersigned by three persons i.e. Junior Account before it is encashed.
This deposition of witness is also clearly reflecting that it was not the
sole responsibility of the accused for preparation of pay orders. DDO and
Junior Accountant has to sign the same before any encashment. PW3 has also
deposed before the court that there was no role of accused dal Sukh in
preparation of pay orders and deposed that accused Dal Sukh used to receive
exact amount which was mentioned on the pay orders of the bank.
In this matter, another witness namely PW Arun Joshi from the
FIR No. 429/2001 State vs Dalsukh and Etc. 21/34
Digitally signed
ROHIT by ROHIT
KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2025.07.09
16:53:09 +0530
vigilance department was examined before the court as PW3. It was deposed
by PW Arun Joshi that on 12.05.2008, he received a notice u/s 91 Cr.P.C by
the IO to produce some documents regarding the present case which is
exhibited as Ex. PW-4/A. Further deposed that in compliance of the said
notice, he produced 05 documents which were seized by the IO vide seizure
memo Ex. PW5/B and said documents includes copy of appointment letter of
both accused persons, copy of transfer order of both accused persons, original
challan of Rs 3 Lakh, statement showing embezzlement and original
specimen signature of both accused persons. PW Arun Joshi deposed that job
of VPM Nair was to record pay orders on salary bills and accused used to
enter increase amount in the pay order and therefore, committed the offence
of embezzlement. Further deposed that after getting the pay order prepared
and signed by the officer, he used to hand over those pay orders to the accused
Dal Sukh/Cashier. Further deposed that accused Dal Sukh used to prepare
cheque and withdraw the cash from the bank on the basis of said pay orders.
Further deposed that in this way, they used to withdraw more amount than
actual and used to distribute the same between themselves.
It is pertinent to mention that deposition of PW Arun Joshi is also
reflecting that after the preparation of pay order by accused VPM Nair, same
were used to be signed by the higher officers before the encashment.
This deposition is clearly reflecting that accused VPM Nair was not
having the sole responsibility for preparation of pay orders. It was used to be
checked by the officers of higher rank before the encashment.
During the cross-examination by the Ld. counsel for accused Dal Sukh,
it was deposed by PW Arun Joshi that he has not placed on record any
document to substantiate the fact that pay orders pertaining to the
embezzlement were handed over to the accused Dal Sukh by VPM Nair. It
was also admitted by PW Arun Joshi that accused Dal Sukh was only entitled
FIR No. 429/2001 State vs Dalsukh and Etc. 22/34
Digitally signed
ROHIT by ROHIT
KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2025.07.09
16:53:14 +0530
to amount from the bank which is depicted on the pay orders and it was also
admitted that as per the nature of the duties, the accused Dal Sukh has no
discretion to withdraw any amount those depicted on pay orders. It is also
admitted by PW Arun Joshi that as per nature of the duties the work of
preparation of pay orders was not related to the accused Dal Sukh.
It is pertinent to mention that these deposition are clearly reflecting that
accused Dal Sukh was not involved in any kind of preparation of alleged
forged documents and he had to encash the pay orders for the value which is
mentioned thereon. Deposition is also reflecting that there is no document and
evidence to show that the accused Dal Sukh was in conspiracy with accused
VPM Nair in preparation of increased amount pay orders baring witnesses of
same department, and they were also under legal duty to do the scrutiny of
the pay orders properly.
In this matter, another witness namely PW Mahaveer Singh then Jr.
Accountant at the plant-II of Delhi Jal Board Haiderpur from the year 1993-
2000 was examined before the court as PW-7. It was deposed by PW
Mahaveer Singh that accounts clerk used to check pay bills of the salary and
job of Assistant Cashier was to withdraw the money from the bank on the
basis of cheques of salary. PW Mahaveer Singh further deposed that he
himself has duty the duty to sign the pay orders after the same was checked
by account clerk. Further deposed that police never recorded his statement
during the investigation.
These deposition of PW Mahaveer Singh is also suggesting that
accused VPM Nair was not sole responsible in preparation of pay orders and
scrutinize the same before the encashment.
This deposition is clearly suggesting that PW Mahaveer Singh, who
was then Jr. Accountant from the year 1993 to 2000, was having the
responsibility to check the pay orders and sign the same thereafter. However,
FIR No. 429/2001 State vs Dalsukh and Etc. 23/34
Digitally signed
ROHIT by ROHIT
KUMAR
KUMAR 2025.07.09
Date:
16:53:20 +0530
IO did not investigate the case as to the fact that why there was no scrutiny of
pay orders by the PW Mahaveer Singh and other officer of the department
before signing properly. This deposition is suggesting that there was the
negligence at the part of the higher officials w.r.t scrutiny of pay orders and
salary bills before signing and encashment of the same properly. It is pertinent
to mention that accused Dal Sukh VPM Nair was posted in the same plant
during the tenure of PW Mahaveer Singh. It is pertinent to mention that
during the cross-examination conducted by the Ld. APP for the State, PW
Mahaveer Singh changed his statement recorded in his examination in his
chief and deposed in his cross-examination that one Badru Hussain used to
prepare pay rolls and he does not used to sign the pay rolls. Further deposed
voluntarily that Head Clerk and Executive Engineers were used to sign the
same. In this deposition, it is reflected that prior to the preparation of pay
orders, there was preparation of pay rolls also and same has been stated to be
prepared by one person namely Badru Hussain. It is pertinent to mention that
IO did not examine any person namely Badru Hussain during investigation.
As per the deposition of witness, it was the responsibility if Badru Hussain to
prepare pay rolls. Thereafter, accused VPM Nair used to prepare pay orders
from pay rolls.
It is pertinent to mention that as per the deposition of PW Mahaveer
Singh, accused VPM Nair was used to prepare the pay orders of the salaries
of the employees of Delhi Jal Board after checking the pat rolls. This
deposition is clearly reflecting that accused VPM Nair was preparing the pay
orders only after checking the pay rolls.
In this matter, IO did not conduct the investigation from the person
namely Badru Hussain and IO has also not done the investigation qua pay
rolls.
PW Mahavir Singh further deposed in his cross-examination that he
FIR No. 429/2001 State vs Dalsukh and Etc. 24/34
ROHIT Digitally signed by
ROHIT KUMARKUMAR 16:53:26 +0530
Date: 2025.07.09
himself had the duty to check the pay orders and he used to sign the pay
orders which were already signed by the accused VPM Nair. Further deposed
that thereafter accountant and Executive Engineer used to sign the same.
Further deposed that on the basis of pay orders, Executive Engineer used to
sign the cheques for drawing the salary of employee from the SBI Chandni
Chowk, Branch, Delhi.
This deposition of PW Mahavir Singh is clearly reflecting accused
VPM Nair was not sole responsible for the scrutiny of pay rolls and pay
orders; Jr. Accountant, head Clerk and Executive Engineers were also legally
burdened with the responsibility of the scrutiny of the pay orders. Signatures
by them in a mechanical manner without any scrutiny for a long period cannot
held the responsibility of the VPM Nair only.
PW Mahavir has himself had admitted before the court that he was
having the duty to check the pay orders and thereafter he used to sign the pay
orders after the signature of accused VPM Nair. This admission is clearly
reflecting that accused VPM Nair was not sole responsible for the scrutiny of
pay orders and pay rolls.
During the cross-examination of PW Mahavir singh, excuse of good
faith on the accused VPM Nair was taken by the witness and witness deposed
that he signed the pay orders on the basis of good faith as there was heavy
duty work load. On this deposition, court is of the view that official work of
any Govt Department should not have been done on the basis of good faith. It
is the responsibility of each and every official of Govt. Department to do their
duty carefully. Merely on the excuse of good faith and work load, one Govt.
Employee cannot shift his blame on the officials of lower rank for their
negligence and dereliction in the duty. PW Mahavir deposed before the court
that he was not having much time to check and compare the pay rolls/pay
orders one by one. Therefore, he signed the pay orders on good faith as itFIR No. 429/2001 State vs Dalsukh and Etc. 25/34
ROHIT Digitally signed by
ROHIT KUMARKUMAR 16:53:31 +0530
Date: 2025.07.09
were signed by the accused VPM Nair. Court is of the view that if those in
authority chose to remain inactive on the excuse of heavy work load towards
their responsibility, they cannot escape from the liability. In this matter, there
was no proper scrutiny at the end of the higher officials for almost 03 years.
Court is of the view that there was dereliction of duty at the part of PW
Mahavir and other higher officials and it cannot be believed that for such a
long period i.e. from 1998 to 2001, higher officials did not get the time or any
single occasion to check the reports for three years. Court is of the view that
any department of the Govt. cannot work on the basis of good faith where
higher officials have been given the duty for scrutiny of pay orders/pay rolls.
Court is of the view that a man in authority is presumed to act with
responsibility, no recklessness. If he chooses to reply on others blindly on the
basis of good faith, he does so at his peril. Court is of the view that good faith
cannot be claimed as a defence for a convenience, ignorance or evasion of
duty.
During the cross-examination of PW Mahavir, it was deposed by the
witness that it was not possible for him to check/scrutinize the bills throughly
due to heavy work load because bills were used to be submitted before him
for signatures at the very late time i.e. at the last 1-2 days of each month. On
this deposition, court is of the view that this story of Mahavir cannot be relied
because he has admittedly deposed that he had raised the issue of late
submissions of bills before Executive Engineer Mr. M P Aryan, account clerks
and other Sr. Officials verbally only. During the trial, there is a not a single
document to show that any written complaint was also given by PW Mahavir
to Higher officials regarding this issue, PW had himself admitted before this
court that he had not made any request to them in written. In the absence of
any written complaint, story of heavy work load cannot be relied. PW
Mahavir has also admitted before the court that he has made no writtenFIR No. 429/2001 State vs Dalsukh and Etc. 26/34
Digitally signed
ROHIT by ROHIT
KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2025.07.09
16:53:37 +0530
complaint regarding the work load to his Seniors.
It is pertinent to mention that PW Mahavir has admitted before the
court during his examination that his increment was stopped during the
departmental inquiry against him in this matter. He also deposed before the
court that increment of Jr. Accountant Mr. Walia and accountant Mr. R.K.
Bansal were also stopped. This deposition is clearly reflecting that there was
the default and negligence on the part of higher officials and this witness and
they were saved after being penalized with minor penalty. It is pertinent to
mention that witness also deposed before the court that there was no role of
accused Dal Sukh in the preparation of pay order and pay rolls and he has to
withdraw the amount which is mentioned on the pay orders. This deposition is
also reflecting that there was no involvement of accused Dal Sukh in the
preparation of pay orders/pay rolls. There is not a single evidence to show that
there was the conspiracy between the accused VPM Nair and accused Dal
Sukh.
It is pertinent to mention that in this matter, IO did not also conduct the
investigation as to the fact that who used to distribute the salaries of
employees manually when accused Dal Sukh was on leave during in between
the period of 1998-2001. If this angle was investigated by the IO, it could
have been find out whether accused Dal Sukh was only withdrawing the
excess amount when he remain on duty or other cashiers were also
withdrawing the excess amount as per the pay orders. If this was brought in
the investigation that excess amount was withdrew only whenever accused
Dal Sukh was on duty, and other cashiers were not withdrawing the excess
amount, it would have established the point of conspiracy between the
accused VPM Nair and Dal Sukh. It is very difficult for the court to
understand that in the long period of 1998-2001, department could not get any
occasion to find out the variation in the actual salary of the employees andFIR No. 429/2001 State vs Dalsukh and Etc. 27/34
Digitally signed
ROHIT by ROHIT
KUMAR
KUMAR 16:53:42
Date: 2025.07.09
+0530
amount withdrawn on the pay orders. This long period is also raising the
question on the conduct of higher officials and clearly reflecting that there
was the negligence completely and there was no scrutiny at the end of higher
officials and all blames have been put on the accused persons. It is pertinent
to mention that PW Mahavir has deposed before the court that signatures of
employees used to obtain by the cashier on the pay itself in token of giving of
salary.
In this matter, another witness on behalf of the prosecution namely B K
Walia was examined before the court as PW8. During the examination, PW
Walia deposed before the court that from year 1998, he was working as a
Accounts Clerk and performing the duties of recording pay orders of the staff,
Salary bills, over time, other wages and other miscellaneous bills. Further
deposed that he also checked the bills of contractors and record pay orders
and also disbursed salaries of the staff. Further deposed that accused persons
used to go bank to collect the cash from the bank and disbursed the salaries of
employees and of that vouchers which were maintained by them. Further
deposed that both accused persons made the cheating of approximately of Rs.
12 Lakhs.
During the examination conducted by Ld. counsel for accused VPM
Nair, it was deposed PW Walia that he was working as a Jr. Accountant in the
office of Executive Engineer, Haiderpur-I from the period of June 2000- July
2001 and he was also looking the work of Haiderpur-II. During the cross-
examination, he deposed that his duty was to sign pay order and maintain the
budget and expenditure of division and working as Financial Adviser of the
Executive Engineer. This deposition of the PW Walia is also clearly reflecting
that it was not the sole responsibility of accused VPM Nair to prepare and
scrutinize the pay orders. PW Walia was also burdened with the duty of
scrutiny of pay orders. It is pertinent to mention that during the cross-
FIR No. 429/2001 State vs Dalsukh and Etc. 28/34
ROHIT Digitally signed by
ROHIT KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2025.07.09
16:53:48 +0530
examination, PW Walia has admitted before the court that before signing the
pay orders, he had already scrutinized all the pay orders during his tenure and
he did not find any lacuna at the time of signing of the orders. He also
admitted that at the time of signing pay orders, he was not able to decipher
about the manipulation in the document. Further deposed that the
manipulation was revealed after 5-6 months, when accused VPM Nair was on
leave and bills were checked by another person namely Mr. Rakesh. He
further deposed that he does not exact remember any date when manipulation
was found out. It is pertinent to mention that deposition as to the fact that
when PW Walia scrutinized the pay orders, he did not find any manipulation,
is also in favour of the accused persons. During the further cross-examination,
PW Walia deposed before the court that it was not possible for him to check
each and every bill manually at the time of sending the pay orders which were
brought after checking bill by the accused VPM Nair at the end of the month.
This excuse is not inspiring the confidence of the court because every witness
has taken the same defence and blame has been put on the accused persons of
lower rank. PW Walia has deposed before the court that it was the duty of
accused VPM Nair to check the bills being the accounts UDC. However, court
is not satisfied with the deposition of this witness because being the officer of
higher rank, it was the duty of higher rank officers also to check the records
doing signature. During the cross-examination conducted by the Ld. counsel
for accused Dal Sukh, PW Walia deposed before the court that scrutiny of the
vouchers was to be done by the accused Dal Sukh after the disbursement of
salary amongst the employees. This deposition is also not inspiring the
confidence of the court because only mere deposition has been done and no
document w.r.t nature of the work of the accused person are placed before the
court. Rather only one letter pertaining to the appointment of accused persons
in the department has been placed on record Ex. PW 2/B and PW-2/C. Perusal
FIR No. 429/2001 State vs Dalsukh and Etc. 29/34
ROHIT Digitally signed by
ROHIT KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2025.07.09
16:53:53 +0530
of these documents, only reflecting the date of appointment of the accused
persons in the department. During the entire trial, not a single document has
been placed on record to show the nature of the duties of the accused persons.
Only mere depositions are there of the witnesses suggesting the guilt of the
accused persons and depositions are reflecting that all of them have shifted
their blame on accused persons. It is a settled law that mere ipse-dixit
deposition of any witness before the court is not sufficient for the conviction
of the accused persons, same has to be supported and corroborated with the
evidence.
In this matter, another witness namely Y K Sharma was examined
before the court as PW-10. PW Y K Sharma was working as Head Cashier in
Delhi Jal Board at Heard Quarter Treasury Jhandewalan, Delhi. It was
deposed by PW Y K Sharma that on 03.07.2001, accused persons had
deposited Rs 3,00,000/- through remittance challan of Division, EE (E & M),
Haidarpur Water Works when allegations regarding the embezzlement had
been made out against the accused persons.
During the cross-examination conducted by the accused Dal Sukh, it
was deposed by PW Y K Sharma that he does not remember when said
challan was deposited and who had deposited the same. Further deposed that
he does not remember whether accused Dal Sukh had come to deposit the said
challan or not. He further deposed that he cannot recall the same because
matter is 16 years old. PW Y K Sharma interestingly denied the suggestion
that accused Dal Sukh has no role in depositing the remittance challan. This
denial on the suggestion is raising the questions on the testimony of PW Y K
Sharma because initially, he deposed that he is not not able to recall who has
deposited the challan and later on, he denied the suggestion that there was no
role of accused Dal Sukh in depositing the challan.
In the cross-examination conducted by the accused VPM Nair, it was
FIR No. 429/2001 State vs Dalsukh and Etc. 30/34
ROHIT Digitally signed by
ROHIT KUMAR
KUMAR 16:53:57 +0530
Date: 2025.07.09
deposed by PW Y K Sharma that he does not remember whether there was
any role of accused VPM Nair while depositing the said challan.
It is pertinent to mention that challan dt.03.07.2001 for an amount of
Rs. 3,00,000/- has been exhibited before the court as PW-10/A (previously
exhibited as Ex P4).
It was further deposed by PW Y K Sharma that the said challan was
bearing the signature of Assistant Cashier at point C on his behalf, signature
of accused at point A and signature of Divisional Jr Accountant Mr. B K Walia
at point B. PW Y K Sharma admitted the fact that signatures at point A was
not done by the accused in his presence.
During the cross-examination, suggestion was given by the Ld.
counsel for accused Dal Sukh that Ex. PW-10/A does not bear the signature of
accused Dal Sukh at point A.
Perusal of the testimony of PW Y K Sharma is reflecting that he was
not sure as to the fact that who has deposited the abovementioned challan in
the department.
It is pertinent to mention that in this matter, questioned documents
alongwith specimen signatures and admitted signatures were sent to the FSL
concerned for the examination. Thereafter, vide dated 17.09.2010, FSL report
was filed. It was opinioned in the said FSL report, Q25 to Q65 as well as S1
to S5, A1 and A2 (related to the accused Dalsukh), were written by one and
the same person. Nevertheless, after the perusal of the said report, court is of
the view that accused Dalsukh cannot be convicted for the charged offence
because in this matter, all witnesses examined before the court had deposed
that there was no role of accused Dalsukh in preparation of pay order and
other documents and he was merely receiving the exact amount depicting on
the pay orders. In this matter, accused Dalsukh has been implicated on the
basis of conspiracy u/s 120B IPC.
FIR No. 429/2001 State vs Dalsukh and Etc. 31/34
ROHIT Digitally signed by
ROHIT KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2025.07.09
16:54:02 +0530
In the said report, it is also mentioned that no express opinion could be
possible on the questioned signatures marked Q1 to Q24 and Q66 to Q84 in
comparison with the standard signatures marked S6 to S10, A3 to A5 (related
to the accused VPM Nair). It was also mentioned that further attempts can be
made if some more standard signatures of the similar model as appeared in
the questioned signatures of the concerned person, may be procured and sent.
On this, it is pertinent to mention that perusal of the charge-sheet reflected
that no further efforts were made by the IO to get the express opinion from
the FSL concerned qua the accused VPM Nair. This lapse in the investigation
is also going in favour of the accused VPM Nair.
It is also pertinent to mention that IO did not examine the person
namely Badru Hussain. During the trial, it has been brought before the court
that initially, pay rolls were prepared by Mr. Badru Hussain and thereafter,
from the pay rolls, pay orders were prepared. IO also did not conduct the
investigation from the angle whether initially, there was the variations in the
pay rolls or not itself. This non examination of the PW Badru Hussain is also
going in favour of the accused persons.
After considering the all facts and circumstances of the present case
and giving the thoughtful consideration on the evidences recorded before the
court, court is of the view that there was the lapse in the investigation and
negligence in the scrutiny of the pay order and pay rolls at the end of officials
of higher rank.
Court is of the view that in this matter, officials of higher ranks have
been saved and IO has not done the investigation properly to check their roles.
IO has blindly believed the story of higher rank officials that they were
having heavy work load. IO also did not check as to why there was no
scrutiny for three years period by the higher officials properly. Furthermore,
in this matter not a single document has been placed on record to show that all
FIR No. 429/2001 State vs Dalsukh and Etc. 32/34
ROHIT Digitally signed by
ROHIT KUMAR
KUMAR 16:54:07 +0530
Date: 2025.07.09
responsibility for the preparation of the pay rolls and pay orders were of
accused persons only. No document has been placed to show the nature of the
duty of the accused persons.
Court is of the view that in this matter, accused persons being the
officials of lower rank have been made a scape goat while letting the officials
of higher rank/superior, who had actual control and decision making power.
Court is of the view that in this matter, selective target was done so that truth
could not be brought before the court and higher rank officials could be
saved. Court is of the view that in this matter, no fair and impartial
investigation has been done by the IO in order to save real culprits. In this
matter, as discussed above, officials of higher rank were left after being
penalized for minor penalty only and they have not been involved in this case
despite the fact they were found guilty in the disciplinary inquiry. Court is of
the view that it is against the law and not permissible to penalize a
subordinate official without examining and checking the roles of those in
superior position. Such kind of investigation is against the fair trial in criminal
syestem. Court is of the view that the seniors officials who supervise or direct
the acts of juniors are equally responsible for their dereliction or misconduct
if they had knowledge or failed to prevent the wrongful acts and they cannot
the defence of good faith and work load.
In view of the observation, considering the FSL report and evidences
recored before the court. Court is not inclined to convict accused Dalsukh and
VPM Nair for the offenses u/s 420/409/468/471/120B/34 IPC as prosecution
has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts.
7. CONCLUSION:
Thus, the unequivocal conclusion that comes forth is that the
prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused persons on theFIR No. 429/2001 State vs Dalsukh and Etc. 33/34
Digitally signed
ROHIT by ROHIT
KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2025.07.09
16:54:12 +0530
touchstone of “beyond reasonable doubt” and accused persons have been
successful in pointing out the deficiencies in the case of the prosecution, thus
entitling them to benefit of doubt. Accordingly, accused persons namely
Dalsukh S/o Sh. Bhimji Bhai and VPM Nair S/o Sh. K P Menon are
acquitted for the offenses u/s 420/409/468/471/120B/34 IPC.
Digitally signed
Announced in open court ROHIT by ROHIT
KUMAR
on 09.07.2025 KUMAR Date: 2025.07.09
16:54:19 +0530
(ROHIT KUMAR)
JMFC-04 (North) Rohini Courts
Delhi/09.07.2025
Certified that this judgment contains 34 pages and each page
bears my signature. ROHIT KUMAR
Digitally signed by ROHIT
KUMAR
Date: 2025.07.09 16:54:25 +0530(ROHIT KUMAR)
JMFC-04 (North) Rohini Courts
Delhi/09.07.2025FIR No. 429/2001 State vs Dalsukh and Etc. 34/34