# Pradeep Kumar Verma v. Union of India

- **Citation:** (2024) 5 ILRA 115
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-05-16
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 2609 of 2022
- **Bench:** Subhash Vidyarthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/pradeep-kumar-verma-v-union-of-india-51984
- **Pages:** 27

## Headnote

Criminal Law-Indian Penal Code-1860Sections 120-B, 409 & 477-A - Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988-- Section 13 (2)
r/w Section 13 (1) (c) (d) -The Code of
Criminal Procedure,1973-Section 197-The
Constitution of India, 1950- Article 20 (3) -
Criminal Appeal against order of conviction
passed by the trail court-The learned trail court
without referring to the prosecution evidence has
proceeded to refer to the defense evidence first-
An authority competent to remove an official
from service is competent to give sanction for
prosecution of the employee but the Prosecution
did not adduce any documentary evidence before
the trial Court to prove as to who was the
authority competent to remove a Postal Assistant
and an Assistant Post Master from service.

The trial Court has not even gone through the
St.ments given by the prosecution witnesses in
their cross-examination- No proof of any
falsification of account- No proof that any of the
appellants had obtained any valuable thing or
pecuniary advantage or that they intentional
enriched themselves illicitly during the period of
their office- No accused person can be convicted
on the basis of a mere presumption- No accused
person is bound to disclose facts which will
ensure his conviction- The difficulty in adducing
direct evidence does not mean that the
prosecution is not required to adduce any
evidence of conspiracy and the Court will simply
presume that the accused persons had entered
into a conspiracy. In absence of direct evidence,
conspiracy has to be proved by circumstantial
evidence-The enquiry team had not made any
enquiry regarding who was guilty for the
embezzlement-Prosecution could not give any
evidence of a conspiracy between the accused
persons and the only evidence was one accused
acted negligently in supervising the work of the
other accused-Result- judgment of conviction
and sentence set aside

Appeal allowed. (E-15)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,738 of 93,326. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39738 for what follows._

5 All. Pradeep Kumar Verma Vs. Union of India
115
40. Thus, for all the reasons which
form part of this judgment, the Criminal
Appeal Nos.2558 of 2014; 2582 of 2014;
2639 of 2014 and 2640 of 2014 are allowed.
The judgment and order dated 26.6.2014
passed by the Additional Sessions Judge,
Court No.5, Kanpur Nagar is quashed. The
appellants namely Sushil Kumar Dwivedi @
Sonu Dwivedi, Anil Kumar Shukla; Santosh
Kumar Dwivedi @ Guddu Dwivedi and
Shrawan Kumar Shukla @ Tanu Shukla,
who are in jail, be released forthwith unless
they are required in any other case.
----------
(2024) 5 ILRA 115
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 16.05.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 2609 of 2022

Pradeep Kumar Verma ...Appellant
Versus
Union of India ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Rajeev Kumar Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondent:
Shiv P. Shukla

Criminal Law-Indian Penal Code-1860Sections 120-B, 409 & 477-A - Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988-- Section 13 (2)
r/w Section 13 (1) (c) (d) -The Code of
Criminal Procedure,1973-Section 197-The
Constitution of India, 1950- Article 20 (3) -
Criminal Appeal against order of conviction
passed by the trail court-The learned trail court
without referring to the prosecution evidence has
proceeded to refer to the defense evidence first-
An authority competent to remove an official
from service is competent to give sanction for
prosecution of the employee but the Prosecution
did not adduce any documentary evidence before
the trial Court to prove as to who was the
authority competent to remove a Postal Assistant
and an Assistant Post Master from service.

The trial Court has not even gone through the
St.ments given by the prosecution witnesses in
their cross-examination- No proof of any
falsification of account- No proof that any of the
appellants had obtained any valuable thing or
pecuniary advantage or that they intentional
enriched themselves illicitly during the period of
their office- No accused person can be convicted
on the basis of a mere presumption- No accused
person is bound to disclose facts which will
ensure his conviction- The difficulty in adducing
direct evidence does not mean that the
prosecution is not required to adduce any
evidence of conspiracy and the Court will simply
presume that the accused persons had entered
into a conspiracy. In absence of direct evidence,
conspiracy has to be proved by circumstantial
evidence-The enquiry team had not made any
enquiry regarding who was guilty for the
embezzlement-Prosecution could not give any
evidence of a conspiracy between the accused
persons and the only evidence was one accused
acted negligently in supervising the work of the
other accused-Result- judgment of conviction
and sentence set aside

Appeal allowed. (E-15)

List of Cases cited:

1. Manzoor Ali Khan Vs U.O.I. & ors.: (2015) 2
SCC 33

2. Heera Lal Bhagwati Vs CBI: AIR 2003 SC
2545

3. Esher Singh Vs St. of A.P. (2004) 11 SCC 585

(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

1. Heard Sri Manish Bajpai, the
learned counsel for the appellant in Criminal
Appeal No.2261 of 2022, Sri Rajeev Kumar
Srivastava, the learned counsel for the
appellant in Criminal Appeal No.2609 of
2022 and Sri Shiv P. Shukla, the learned
counsel for the respondent-Union of India.
116 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

2. Both the aforesaid appeals have
been filed against the same judgment and
order dated 25.08.2022, passed by the
learned Special Judge, P.C. Act, C.B.I.
Court No.4, Lucknow in Criminal Case
No.18 of 2007, which was instituted on the
basis of F.I.R. bearing R.C. No.6 (A) of
2007 and, therefore, the same are being
decided by a common judgment.

3. The facts relating to Criminal
Appeal No.2609 of 2022 & Criminal Appeal
No.2261
of
2022
are
that
the
Superintendent, Post Office, Fatehgarh
Division,
Farrukhabad
had
given
a
complaint
dated
28.02.2007
to
the
Superintendent of Police, C.B.I./A.C.B.
Lucknow stating that Pradeep Kumar Verma
(the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.2609
of 2022 was posted as Postal Assistant,
Amar Nath Agnihotri (the appellant in
Criminal Appeal No.2261 of 2022) was
posted as Assistant Postmaster and Alladin
was posted as Postmaster in the Head Post
Office, Fatehgarh, District Farrukhabad
during the period August 2005 to January
2006. Pradeep Kumar Verma was assigned
the duties of savings certificate discharge
counter. He used to receive cash from the
head post office and to make payments in
respect of National Savings Certificate
(NSC), Kisan Vikas Patra (KVP) and Indira
Vikas Patra (IVP) and after fulfilling all the
formalities Amar Nath Agnihotri, Assistant
Postmaster used to examine the documents
and Alladin, Post Master used to verify the
transactions regarding NSC, KVP and IVP.
In the months of August 2005 to January
2006, Pradeep Kumar Verma embezzled
Rs.31,92,772/-. Amar Nath Agnihotri and
Alladin did not check the receipt book,
discharge journals and monthly returns etc.
properly, made false entries in records,
committed forgery in the documents and
embezzled Rs.31,92,772/-. The offence was
committed in connivance with Amar Nath
Agnihotri and Alladin. The Superintendent
of the Post Office had made a request for
initiating legal proceedings against Pradeep
Kumar Verma, Amar Nath Agnihotri and
Alladin.

4. On the basis of the aforesaid
complaint, an F.I.R. bearing RC No.06 (A)
of 2007, under Sections 120-B, 409, 477-A
I.P.C. and Section 13 (2) read with Section
13 (1) (c) (d) of Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 was lodged in Police Station
C.B.I./A.C.B.
Lucknow,
U.P.
After
investigation
a
charge-sheet
dated
19.06.2007 for the offences under Sections
120-B, 409, 477-A I.P.C. and Section 13 (2)
read with Section 13 (1) (c) (d) of
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was
filed against Pradeep Kumar Verma and
Amar Nath Agnihotri only and the learned
trial court took cognizance of the offence on
08.06.2007 and they were tried in Criminal
Case No.18 of 2007.

5. Both the accused persons were
convicted and sentenced as follows: -

 (i)
three
years
simple
imprisonment and Rs.20,000/- fine for the
offence under Section 120-B I.P.C. read
with Section 409, 477-A I.P.C. and simple
imprisonment for an additional period of
four months in case of failure to pay fine;

(ii) ten years simple imprisonment
and Rs.25,000/- fine for the offence under
Section 409 I.P.C. and simple imprisonment
for an additional period of one year in case
of failure to pay fine;

(iii)
five
years
simple
imprisonment and Rs.20,000/- fine for the
offence under Section 477-A I.P.C. and
simple imprisonment for an additional
period of one year in case of failure to pay
fine;
5 All. Pradeep Kumar Verma Vs. Union of India
117

(iv)
five
years
simple
imprisonment and Rs.20,000/- fine for the
offence under Section 120-B I.P.C. read
with Section 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (c) (d)
of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and
simple imprisonment for an additional
period of five months in case of failure to
pay fine;

(v)
five
years
simple
imprisonment and Rs.20,000/- fine for the
offence under Sections 13 (2) read with 13
(1) (c) of Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 and simple imprisonment for an
additional period of five months in case of
failure to pay fine; and

(vi)
five
years
simple
imprisonment and Rs.20,000/- fine for the
offence under Sections 13 (2) read with 13
(1) (c) of Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 and simple imprisonment for an
additional period of five months in case of
failure to pay fine.

6. A charge-sheet was submitted
against both the appellants on 07.12.2011,
under Sections 120-B read with 409 and
477-A I.P.C. 409 I.P.C., 477-A I.P.C. 120-B
I.P.C. read with Section 13 (2) read with 13
(1) (c) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988, Section 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (c) of
Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 13
(2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of
Prevention of Corruption Act.

7. The prosecution examined eleven
witnesses besides submitting documentary
evidences.

8. The appellant Pradeep Kumar
Verma denied the allegations in his
statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and
stated that the prosecution sanction had been
granted against the Rules. He had done all
works relating to KVP, NSC and IVP and
prepared discharge journals and hand-tohand receipt books in his own hand writing
as per the Rules, on the basis whereof the
day-to-day account was countersigned by
the Treasurer, the Postmaster and APM-II.
Had he committed any irregularities the
Assistant Postmaster and the Postmaster
would have made a complaint to the higher
authorities.
The
Investigating
Officer
conducted the investigation properly and
submitted a charge-sheet wrongly. The
matter was initiated by an unsigned letter
dated 09.10.2006 purportedly sent by some
office bearer of the employees union.
Pradeep Kumar Verma had been elected as
a delegate in the elections of U.P. Postal
Cooperative Society held in September
2006, due to which his rivals and some other
persons had become jealous of him. A
dispute had occurred with PW-3 Arun
Yadav regarding checking of attendance
register of Head Post Office relating to
August, 2006. He had been falsely
implicated due to these reasons.

9. The other appellant Amar Nath
Agnihotri stated in his statement recorded
under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that the
prosecution sanction had been granted in a
mechanical
way
without
independent
application of mind. The responsibility of
supervision of daily work rests on the
Postmaster. He stated that he had joined the
Postal Department in July, 2004 after
coming back from Army Postal Service.
During this entire tenure he did not verify
any document. No punishment was imposed
upon him in the departmental proceedings,
whereas some other employees had been
punished.

10. A bare perusal of the impugned
judgment and order passed by the learned
trial court indicates a glaring flaw in its
approach inasmuch as without referring to
the prosecution evidence, the learned trial
118 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
court has proceeded to refer to the defense
evidence first.

11. DW-1 Pradeep Kumar Verma
stated that he got appointed in Postal
Department on 01.11.1983 as a Branch
Assistant. He remained posted in various
sub post offices. He had passed the savings
bank eligibility test in the year 1996. He was
transferred to the post of Postal Assistant in
Head Office, Fatehgarh on 16.06.2005. He
was assigned the duties of savings bank
section. He had been elected the Divisional
Secretary of the departmental employees
union in the year 1992. In the year 1997, he
was elected as the Divisional Secretary of
All India Postal Employees Union Class-III.
In the year 2005 he had been elected as a
delegate
of
U.P.
Postal
Cooperative
Societies, Hazratganj, Lucknow. Dr. Arun
Yadav, who was working as Complaint
Inspector
in
the
office
of
Postal
Superintendent, Fatehgarh, had openly
supported the appellant's rival candidate and
he had pressurized the polling officials to get
votes in favour of another candidate. A
complaint in this regard was made to the
Superintendent of Post Office, Farrukhabad,
whereupon Dr. Arun Yadav had been
removed from the polling centre. While Dr.
Arun Yadav was holding the post of
Complaint Inspector, he came at about 2.30
p.m. on some day in August, 2005 and
checked the attendance register and he
misbehaved with the employees who had
not signed the attendance register, including
a lady employee Smt. Sunita Yadav. The
employees told Pradeep Kumar Verma
about the ill treatment of Dr. Yadav and he
had talked to Dr. Arun Yadav stating that a
crowd gathers even before opening of the
counters and in a haste of starting the work
the employees could not have made their
signatures. The complaint of this incident
was also made to the Superintendent Post
Office Farrukhabad, whereupon Dr. Arun
Yadav had abused and threatened Pradeep
Kumar Verma that he would not be able to
continue his service.

12. Pradeep Kumar Verma further
stated that Lajja Ram Dixit, who was
working as an Assistant Post Master-II, has
leveled a false allegation that the appellant
had taken away the pending return vouchers.
In the year 1999 several complaints
regarding corruption were made against the
Post Office Superintendent R. P. Tripathi.
The Chief Post Master General, Lucknow
had sent a letter dated 25.11.1999 to Pradeep
Kumar Verma asking him to examine the
correctness of the complaint. While the
appellant was lodged in District Jail,
Lucknow since April, 2007, on 25.09.2008
he was removed from service in furtherance
of an ex-parte enquiry, on some other
charges, which are not related to the
allegations of embezzlement involved in the
present case.

13. Pradeep Kumar Verma also
stated that no complaint of the alleged
embezzlement had been made by any
investor. An unsigned complaint was made
at 10.00 a.m. on 09.10.2006 when the
Superintendent of the Post office was on
L.T.C. leave and without verifying its
correctness, an enquiry team was constituted
consisting of R.C. Verma and Sarvesh
Kumar Mishra, Inspectors Post Office,
Farrukhabad, Imran Khan, the Complaint
Inspector, Farrukhabad and Dr. Arun
Yadav, Inspector, Post Office, Chhibramau
and
it
reached
Head
Post
Office
Farrukhabad within an hour at about 11.30
a.m.. The members of the enquiry team
remained present in the Head Office till 4.00
p.m. on 09.10.2006. The returns of KVP,
NSC, IVP for all pending months had
already been prepared, been signed by the
5 All. Pradeep Kumar Verma Vs. Union of India
119
Assistant
Postmaster-II,
Amar
Nath
Agnihotri and had been handed over to
Postmaster,
Fatehgarh
even
before
09.10.2006 for physical verification of
return vouchers. The return of the Head Post
Office and 63 other Sub Post Offices had
already been submitted for certification of
the cash-books by Assistant Postmasters
Accounts/Postmasters.

14. Pradeep Kumar Verma further
stated that while the enquiry team was
present in the Head Office on 09.10.2006,
three bags containing KVP of the months
March, 2006, July, 2006 and September
2006 had been booked in parcel at 01.53 hrs.
which bags had been handed over by
Banking Clerk Rajesh Shakya to Smt. Sunita
Yadav on the dispatch counter. In her
examination, the Dispatch Clerk Sunita
Yadav admitted having received three
parcels and having sent the same to RMS,
Kanpur. On 10.10.2006 the Postmaster
Fatehgarh, Alladin had given information of
booking of return parcel to the Assistant
Superintendent and the officer in-charge of
the enquiry team, where upon all the three
booked parcels were intercepted midway
and
received
by
the
Assistant
Superintendent Headquarter at his office on
11.10.2006, whereas as per the departmental
Rules, any registered post/parcel can be
returned only on the request of the sender.
The parcels in question had been sent by the
Postmaster, Head Post Office, Fatehgarh
and he had not made any request for getting
return of the already sent parcels. All the
three parcels were opened without any order
of Superintendent, Post Office, Farrukhabad
and a list/inventory was prepared. The
discharge journal, hand-to-hand receipt
book and payment register etc. used to be
given to the Treasurer and the Treasurer
used to prepare HO summary, payment
journal, vouchers and payment register on
daily basis. When the account tallied, the
Assistant Postmaster-Accounts used to
make entries in the cash-book. After the
account was tallied, the original vouchers
and journal returns used to be kept in the
custody of the Assistant Postmaster-II. The
number of KVP, NSC and IVP, in respect of
which payment was made on daily basis,
was shown in the monthly statistics register
which was signed by the Postmaster on daily
basis.

15. After referring to the evidence
of accused-appellant Pradeep Kumar Verma
the learned trial court has referred to the
submissions advanced on behalf of the
accused Pradeep Kumar Verma in order to
establish that he is innocent. This approach
of the learned trial court is also patently
erroneous and against the well established
principles of trial of criminal cases in which
the prosecution is required to make out a
case and it is only thereafter that an accused
person is called upon to defend himself.
Therefore, the trial courts first deal with the
prosecution evidence and submissions made
by the prosecutor and the defence is
considered only later on but a contrary
approach has been adopted by the learned
trial court in the present case.

16. It was argued on behalf of the
prosecution that while working on the post
of Postal Assistant in the Head Office,
Fatehgarh,
District
Farrukhabad
on
17.08.2005,
20.08.2005,
22.08.2005,
25.08.2005,
02.09.2005,
03.09.2005,
13.09.2005,
15.09.2005,
05.10.2005,
22.10.2005,
24.10.2005,
26.10.2005,
29.10.2005,
17.11.2005,
18.11.2005,
19.11.2005,
30.11.2005,
05.12.2005,
06.12.2005,
07.12.2005,
12.12.2005,
16.12.2005, 29.12.2005, 17.01.2006 and
23.01.2006, the appellant Pradeep Kumar
Verma, acting under a criminal conspiracy
120 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
with the other appellant Amar Nath
Agnihotri, showed payment of excess
amount in the government documents e.g.
hand-to-hand receipt books, discharge
journals and monthly returns etc. and he
dishonestly made payments of KVP of
lesser value. By committing forgery and
making false entries in the documents, he
misappropriated Rs.31,92,772/- and thereby
caused wrongful gain to himself and to the
co-accused Amar Nath Agnihotri and he
caused wrongful loss of the aforesaid
amount to the postal department.

17. The trial Court referred to the
examination-in-chief of PW-1 Awdhesh
Kumar Srivastava, who was posted as
Superintendent, Post Office Fatehgarh in the
year 2007 and he had granted sanction for
prosecution of the appellants. He stated that
he was the competent authority to remove
both the appellants from their posts.

18. The learned trial court held that
the prosecution sanction was granted by
PW-1 after applying his independent mind
and it was legal and valid. It is relevant to
note that only an authority competent to
remove an official from service is competent
to give sanction for prosecution of the
employee but the Prosecution did not
adduce any documentary evidence before
the trial Court to prove as to who was the
authority competent to remove a Postal
Assistant and an Assistant Post Master from
service.

19. PW-2 Uday Prakash Gangal
stated in his examine-in-chief that he was
posted as Assistant Superintendent, Post
Office, Fatehgarth from the afternoon of
23.02.2007 to 07.10.2009 and he had
worked as officer-in-charge of the enquiry
team with effect from 06.03.2007. The other
members of the enquiry team were Sri Ram
Sagar Sharma, Deputy Divisional Inspector,
Kannauj,
Dr.
Arun
Yadav,
Deputy
Divisional Inspector, Chhibramau and Sri
Sarvesh Kumar Mishra, Deputy Divisional
Inspector Farrukhabad. Prior to PW-1 Sri R.
C. Verma and Sri R.S. Pal had headed the
enquiry team respectively. The PW-2
proved the F.I.R. that had been lodged by the
PW-1 Awdhesh Kumar Srivastava. This
witness deposed about the procedure for
payment of KVP as per which at the start of
the day, the Postal Assistant KVP payment
counter receives cash after making entry in
the cash-book maintained by the Treasurer,
after verification by the Postmaster or the
Assistant Postmaster. In absence of the
Treasurer, he obtains payment from other
Postal Assistants working on other counters
with the prior approval of Postmaster or the
Assistant Postmaster and these transactions
are recorded by the concerned Counter
Assistant in hand-to-hand receipt books.
The KVPs received for payment are checked
by the Postal Assistants working on KVP
payment counter and thereafter he presents
the KVPs along with guard-file of purchase
of KVP certificate to the Assistant
Postmaster. After checking the details, the
Assistant Postmaster grants approval for
payment and makes a remark "paid on
......date" on the certificate. The Postal
Assistant also makes an entry on the
certificates received after approval of
Assistant Postmasters and in case the
amount to be paid is less than Rs.20,000/-,
he makes cash payment after taking an
acknowledgment of receipt, but if the
amount is Rs.20,000/- or more, the payment
is made through an account payee cheque.
At the close of each working day the Postal
Assistant working on the KVPs payment
counters prepares the discharge journals of
paid KVPs containing serial number of the
certificate, it's value and registration
number. The discharge journals are prepared
5 All. Pradeep Kumar Verma Vs. Union of India
121
denomination wise and are checked and
sanctioned by Assistant Postmasters on
daily basis. The Postal Assistant working on
the payment counter maintains the register
of
discharged
KVPs,
wherein
the
consolidated amount paid denomination
wise is also recorded. The Assistant
Postmasters tallies the discharge details
recorded in the discharge journals with the
discharged
KVPs
and
attaches
the
discharged KVPs to the discharge journal.
The discharge journals are signed by the
Postal Assistant and Assistant Postmaster
and the seal of the post office is put on it.
The Postal Assistant prepares an abstract in
the hand-to-hand receipt book wherein he
enters the total amount received from the
treasury, the total amount received from the
other Postal Assistants and the total amount
paid and he returns the balance amount to
the treasurer. The Treasurer receives the
balance amount and enters it in the hand-tohand receipt book. The Treasurer prepares
Head Office summary according to the
aforesaid abstract of discharged certificates
and treasurer's cash-book.

20. PW-2 categorically stated that
the Postmaster is responsible for the entries
made in the Head Office summary. The
discharged certificates and the discharge
journals are kept in the personal custody of
Assistant Postmasters, till the same are
submitted to the Director of Postal
Accounts. At the end of the month, a
consolidated summary of the discharged
certificates is prepared under the supervision
of the Assistant Postmaster and the original
discharged certificates are sent to the
Director, Postal Accounts, Lucknow. The
postmaster is responsible for sending the
monthly details to Director Postal Accounts.
The Treasurer maintains the Head Office
summary wherein the receipts and payments
made under all the heads are recorded. The
Postmaster
checks
the
Head
Office
summary from the registers of all the related
sections.
The
Postmaster
checks
the
discharged savings certificates and satisfies
himself that the amount of paid up savings
certificates mentioned in the Head Office
summary is as per the discharge journals of
discharged certificates and that they are
available in record.

21. The PW-3 Arun Yadav stated in
his examination-in-chief that he was a
member of the enquiry team constituted for
enquiring embezzlement made in the Head
Post Office Fatehgarh during the period
August, 2005 to January, 2006. The enquiry
was conducted after the relevant original
KVPs discharge journals were received back
from
the
Director,
Postal
Accounts,
Lucknow
and
it
was
found
that
embezzlement of Rs.1,00,000/- was made
on
20.08.2005,
Rs.1,00,000/-
on
22.08.2005, Rs.19,19,942/- on 25.08.2005,
Rs.40,516 on 02.09.2005, Rs.20,000/- on
03.09.2005, Rs.2,00,000/- on 13.09.2005,
Rs.1,00,000/- on 15.09.2005, Rs.2,000/- on
05.10.2005, Rs.1,40,000/- on 22.10.2005,
Rs.80,116/- on 24.10.2005, Rs.6,000/- on
29.10.2005, Rs.80,000/- on 26.10.2005,
Rs.3,40,000/- on 18.11.2005, Rs.2,00,000/-
on
18.11.2005,
Rs.2,40,000/-
on
19.11.2005, Rs.1,000/- on 30.11.2005,
Rs.2,00,000/-
on
05.12.20005,
Rs.6,00,000/- on 06.12.2005, Rs.2,00,000/-
on
07.12.2005,
Rs.1,20,000/-
on
12.12.2005, Rs.20,000/- on 16.12.2005,
Rs.4,10,320/- on 29.12.2005, Rs.100/- on
17.01.2006 and Rs.2,000/- were embezzled
on 23.01.2006. The accused had made an
excess deposited of Rs.222/- on 17.08.2005.
The total amount embezzled on the
aforesaid dates came to Rs.31,92,772/-
which had been made by the appellants. The
complaint of embezzlement was made to
C.B.I. by Awadhesh Kumar Srivastava, the
122 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
then Superintendent Post Office Fatehgarh
(PW-1). The complaint Exhibit-A3/1 and
A3/2 were proved by PW-2. He proved D-3
seizure memo dated 09.04.2007 relating to
hand-to-hand receipt book, NSC, KVP
issued during the period 01.08.2005 to
31.08.2005 and 01.10.2005 to 31.12.2005
and Head Office summary for the period
01.08.2005 to 11.08.2005 and 03.10.2005 to
30.12.2005 which bear signatures of U.P.
Gangal (PW-2).

22. The witness PW-3 Arun Yadav
stated that the members of the Enquiry Team
had made an assessment of the embezzled
amount on the basis of documents D-4,
hand-to-hand receipt book of NSC, KVP,
IVP, discharge accounts relating to the
period August, 2005 to 31.12.2005.

23. The PW-4 Awadhesh Singh
Yadav stated that he had worked on the NSC
issue counter in the Head Post office during
June, 2001 till September 2006. He stated
that as he had worked with the appellants, he
recognizes
their
hand
writings
and
signatures. He proved documents D-4 handto-hand receipt book of NSC, KVP, IVP,
discharge accounts which was marked as
Ex-A7. Hand-to-hand receipt books for the
dates 05.10.2005, 22.10.2005, 24.10.2005,
29.10.2005,
17.11.2005,
18.11.2005,
19.11.2005,
30.11.2005,
05.12.2005,
06.12.2005,
07.12.2005,
12.12.2005,
16.12.2005, 29.12.2005, 17.01.2006 and
23.01.2006 were attached to it. These handto-hand receipt books had been prepared and
signed by Pradeep Kumar Verma. He stated
that Suresh Chandra Gupta, Assistant
Postmaster had worked and signed on
05.10.2005, 20.11.2005 and 30.11.2005. D7 Treasure's cash-book had signatures of
PW-4 as the treasurer on 05.10.2005. He
further stated that the document D-5 was the
hand-to-hand
receipt
books
of
the
NSC/KVP issue counter for the period
01.08.2005 to 31.10.2005, which had been
prepared by PW-3 in his own handwriting,
except for 04.10.2005 and 07.10.2005.

24. PW-5 Collector Singh was
posted as treasurer in the post office. He also
stated that the hand-to-hand receipt book
contains signatures of Suresh Chandra
Gupta, Assistant Postmaster on some of the
dates and on rest of the dates Amar Nath
Agnihotri had signed as the Assistant
Postmaster. While performing the duties of
treasurer in that post office, PW-5 used to
provide cash to RD counters and NSC
discharge counter as per the instructions of
the Postmaster or the Assistant Postmaster,
make an entry in the cash-book and get the
same signed by the concerned Postal
Assistant. At the end of the working hours,
the amount remaining with all the counters
was received by PW-5 through hand-tohand receipt book and entries were made in
the Treasurer's cash-book and HO summary
on the basis of hand-to-hand receipt book.
While closing the treasury, signature of
postmaster are obtained on the HO
summary. This witness stated after seeing
document D-9 that the certificates and
discharge journals dated 17.08.2005 were
available therein, which included one
certificate of Rs.500/-, eleven certificates of
Rs.1,000/-, seven certificates of Rs.5,000/-
and 58 certificates of Rs.10,000/-, without
any discharge journal. All the certificates
and discharge journal bear signature of
Amar Nath Agnihotri and the discharge
journals
had
been
prepared
in
the
handwriting of accused Pradeep Kumar
Verma. This witness proved KVP certificate
and discharge journal filed as D-10 and
stated that 4 certificates of denomination
Rs.1,000/-, 7 of denomination Rs.5,000/-
and 12 of denomination Rs.10,000/- and
three discharge journals relating to the
5 All. Pradeep Kumar Verma Vs. Union of India
123
aforesaid certificates prepared in the hand
writing of Pradeep Kumar Verma were there
before the witness and the rear side of KVP
certificates and discharge journals bear
signatures of Amar Nath Agnihotri, which
was proved by him as Exhibit-A9. Similarly
this witness proved D-11 containing 46
KVP certificates and discharge journals
dated 22.08.2005, D-12 containing 64
certificates and discharge journals dated
25.08.2005, D-16 containing 33 certificates
and discharge journal dated 02.09.2005.

25. The trial court observed that in
the light of the aforesaid statements of
witness when the court examined D-16, it
was found that there were 10 certificates of
denomination of Rs.1,000/-, 2 of Rs.500/-, 3
of Rs.5,000/-, 4 of Rs.100/- and 28 of
Rs.10,000/-
These
certificates
bear
signatures of Suresh Chandra Gupta. Some
of the certificates bear signatures of some
other officer, which are not recognized by
the witness.

26. PW-5 Collector Singh stated
that the document D-13 consisted of 16
certificates of denomination of Rs.1,000/-, 2
of Rs.5,000/-, 9 of Rs.10,000/-, 18 of
Rs.1,000/-, 01 of Rs.1,000/- and 01 of
Rs.500/-
along
with
voucher
dated
03.09.2005.
These
certificates
bear
signature of some Assistant Postmaster
other than Amar Nath Agnihotri. D-13 was
marked as Ex-A-13. Similarly, this witness
proved numerous other certificates and
discharge journals for various dates.

27. PW-6 Ram Sagar Sharma stated
that he had worked as Deputy Divisional
Inspector Kannauj since 01.10.2004 to
30.09.2007 and he was one of the members
of the enquiry team. The enquiry team had
verified NSC, KVP payment vouchers for
the period September, 2005 to January, 2006
which were provided to the enquiry team
from the Head Post Office summary, the
Treasurer cash-book and hand-to-hand
receipt book etc. During continuance of the
proceedings PW-6 had been included as a
member of the enquiry team in place of
Imran Khan. He stated that Pradeep Kumar
Verma made payment of Rs.12,59,690/-,
Rs.4,16,815/- Rs.5,84,070/-, Rs.13,04,284/-
towards KVPs discharged on 17.08.2005,
20.08.2005, 22.08.2005 and 25.08.2005
respectively, whereas as per the available
voucher the amount of payment on the
aforesaid
dates
were
Rs.12,59,912/-,
Rs.3,16,815/-,
Rs.4,48,070/-
and
Rs.11,04,342/-
respectively
and
the
difference amount had been embezzled by
the accused persons. Similar statements
were given regarding some other dates also
and the witness stated that the accused
persons embezzled a total of Rs.31,92,772/-
to various dates. The basis of this inference
of embezzlement was that the vouchers of the
aforesaid amount were not found during
enquiry. He further stated that the embezzlement
was done by Pradeep Kumar Verma. Amar Nath
Agnihotri was responsible for supervising the
work of Pradeep Kumar Verma and he did not
supervise it as per the departmental rules, due to
which embezzlement was made and, therefore,
Amar Nath Agnihotri is also responsible for the
embezzlement.

28. PW-7 Sarvesh Kumar Mishra
stated that he was also one of the members
of the enquiry team. The enquiry team had
conducted the enquiry on the basis of the
documents and vouchers obtained from the
Head Post Office, Fatehgarh in which it was
found that the amount of vouchers received
during the enquiry was less than the amount
shown in the accounts as having been paid.

29. PW-7 categorically stated that
the amount of payment vouchers which
124 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
were not available, was treated by the
enquiry team as the amount embezzled. He
further stated that as per the departmental
rules, all the paid up vouchers ought to have
been in custody of the Assistant Postmaster
Amar Nath Agnihotri but the accused
persons did not follow the departmental
rules and these vouchers continued to
remain with Pradeep Kumar Verma and
were taken by Pradeep Kumar Verma to his
home.

30. It is recorded in the judgment
that PW-7 had been cross-examined on
behalf of the accused persons and even in his
cross-examination he merely reiterated the
statements given in his examination-in-chief
and no such discrepancy came to light in his
cross-examination as may create a doubt
against the credibility of this witness.

31. PW-8 Upendra Kumar stated
that he used to work as a Postal Assistant on
S/B Counter in August, 2005, during which
period Amar Nath Agnihotri was working as
Assistant Post Master-II (S/B). The Counter
Clerks used to take cash from the Treasury
in the morning and to render accounts and
enter the balance amount in hand-to-hand
receipt book and deposit the balance cash
amount in the Treasury, after counter
signature of APM-II. The APM-II used to
prepare
separate
log
books
for
the
transactions made on the counters during the
entire day and tally the same with hand-tohand receipt books. Nominal roll was
prepared by the Reader of the Postmaster
and was signed by the Postmaster. Nominal
roll contains particulars regarding which of
the employee will perform which duty
during the day. He further stated that the
treasurer prepares a head-wise/item-wise
HO summary on the basis of hand-to-hand
receipt book for various counters. Pradeep
Kumar Verma was looking after the work of
NSC discharge, whereas this witness was
working on S/B counter during the relevant
time and he also gave a date wise description
of the amounts obtained by Pradeep Kumar
Verma like other previous witnesses.

32. PW-9 Santosh Kumar Pandey
was working as a Junior Accounts Officer in
the Office of the Director, Postal Accounts
and he proved the document D-2, through
which
the
summary
description
of
discharged KVP Journals of the desired
dates had been provided. The summary ran
into 4 pages annexed with D-2 and he had
gone to the C.B.I. Office and had handed
over the same. In his cross-examination,
PW-9 stated that the vouchers which could
be found out, had been made available over
to C.B.I. When asked about the monthly
returns, PW-9 stated that whatever had been
received through parcel, was made available
to the C.B.I.

33. PW-10 Ram Shiromani Pal
stated that he had worked as an Officer Incharge of the enquiry team. Pradeep Kumar
Verma had prepared the hand-to-hand
receipt book for the period 17.08.2005 to
23.01.2006 in his own handwriting and it
bears the signature of Pradeep Kumar
Verma and Amar Nath Agnihotri, APM. On
three
of
the
dates
i.e.
05.10.2005,
24.10.2005 and 30.11.2005 it had been
signed by Suresh Chandra, APM and on
other dates Amar Nath Agnihotri had signed
it. HO summary of the dates on which the
alleged fraud was committed, had been
prepared by Treasurer, Collector Singh
(PW-5), which bears signature of the
Postmaster R.P. Gupta and Alladin.

34. PW-11 Ram Naresh Dwivedi
was entrusted investigation of the matter by
means of an order dated 01.03.2007, passed
by the Superintendent of Police, CBI/ACB,
5 All. Pradeep Kumar Verma Vs. Union of India
125
Lucknow. He had recorded statements of
witnesses and obtained original KVPs
journal summary and other documents and
had submitted a charge-sheet against the
appellants on 19.06.2007.

35. The learned trial court
mentioned the submissions advanced on
behalf of the accused Pradeep Kumar Verma
that he was progressing in the departmental
position in a very impressive manner and,
therefore, the officers of the post office
hatched a conspiracy and got him entangled
in it and charges had been prepared against
him only on the basis of findings of the
enquiry report.

36. The learned trial court
concluded that the accused persons took
advantage of the shortcomings in the rules
of the post office and made embezzlement
and were successful in concealing the same
for a long period of time. Had Amar Nath
Agnihotri performed his duties in a proper
manner, embezzlement would have come to
light immediately and action would have
been
taken.
Amar
Nath
Agnihotri
knowingly
committed
negligence
in
performance of his duties. He did not
supervise the work of Pradeep Kumar
Verma. He continued to verify the entries
made by Pradeep Kumar Verma, thereby
assisting in commission of his criminal acts.
This establishes the criminal intent of Amar
Nath Agnihotri. The learned trial court
referred to the principle of law that a person
seeking equity must approach with clean
hands. The court held that the members of
the enquiry team have given evidence which
establishes complicity of the accused
persons in the commission of offence in
connivance with each other and the
submissions advanced on behalf of the
accused person that they have been
entangled by hatching a conspiracy because
of animosity, is fictitious and fabricated, as
the accused persons could not give any
evidence in support of this contention.

37. The learned trial court further
held that Amar Nath Agnihotri used to
supervise the work of Pradeep Kumar
Verma and verify the entries made by
Pradeep Kumar Verma in hand-to-hand
receipt books. He committed negligence in
performance of his duty and verified the
entries without tallying the same with other
related documents and thus he assisted in
criminal activities of Pradeep Kumar
Verma. If such act is committed repetitively,
the
same
cannot
be
done
without
predetermination and criminal conspiracy.

38. The learned trial court found
that the prosecution witnesses have clearly
proved that Pradeep Kumar Verma has
shown false and forged payment in hand-tohand receipt books. Amar Nath Agnihotri,
APM SB-II verified the fake entries of
payments in hand-to-hand books under a
criminal conspiracy with Pradeep Kumar
Verma, whereas he was responsible to verify
the entries in hand-to-hand receipt books by
original discharged vouchers, which he
failed to do. Thus both the accused persons
cheated the postal department and caused
financial loss to it.

39. The learned trial court found
that the prosecution has been successful in
proving that while working on the post of
Postal Assistant in Head Post Office,
Fatehgarh,
District
Farrukhabad
on
17.08.2005,
20.08.2005,
22.08.2005,
25.08.2005,
02.09.2005,
03.09.005,
13.09.2005,
15.09.2005,
05.10.2005,
22.10.2005,
24.10.2005,
26.10.2005,
29.10.2005,
17.11.2005,
18.11.2005,
19.11.2005,
30.11.2005,
05.12.2005,
06.12.2005,
07.12.2005,
12.12.2005,
126 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
16.12.2005, 29.12.2005, 17.01.2006 and
23.01.2006
acting
under
a
criminal
conspiracy with the co-accused Amar Nath
Agnihotri, Assistant Postmaster. He showed
excess payment in hand-to-hand receipt
books, discharge journals and monthly
returns etc. whereas he deceitfully made
payments of lessor amounts towards Kisan
Vikas Patra and by making forgery of
documents and false entries he embezzled
Rs.31,92,772/-. The payment vouchers of
the aforesaid excess amounts could not be
found during enquiry, whereas Pradeep
Kumar Verma had obtained the amounts
from the treasury and it is established from
the cash summary and hand-to-hand receipt
books of the Head Post Office. The learned
trial court found that PW-6 has proved the
attendance register (D-34) of Head Post
Office for the period August, 2005 to
January, 2006 for the dates 22.08.2005,
25.08.2005,
02.09.2005,
03.09.2005,
13.09.2005,
15.09.2005,
05.10.2005,
22.10.2005,
24.10.2005,
26.10.2005,
29.10.2005,
17.11.2005,
18.11.2005,
19.11.2005,
30.11.2005,
05.12.2005,
06.12.2005,
07.12.2005,
12.12.2005,
16.12.2005, 29.12.2005, 17.01.2006 and
23.01.2006 to show that the accused persons
were present on duty on the aforesaid dates.

40. After recording the aforesaid
finding, the learned trial court proceeded to
record that the accused persons have not
proved the documents submitted in their
defence by producing any independent
witness.