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