1

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE, CBI, ASSAM, ADDL. CBI COURT-II, CHANDMARI, GUWAHATI-3.

Special Case No. 43/2006.

State(CBI)Vs

Hassan Ali,the then Branch Manager,

L.I.C.I. Maligaon Branch, Guwahati………………………….Accused.

U/Secs 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and 13(2), R/W 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 1988.

P R E S E N T

Sri P.C. Das(AJS), Special Judge CBI, Assam,

Addl. CBI Court No.II, Chandmari, Guwahati-3.

APPEARANCE:For the State…………………Mr. S.D. Purkayastha, Ld. Spl. P.P; CBI for the prosecution.For the accused…………… Mr. S. K. Lahkar, Ms. M. Choudhury Ld. Counsel for the defence.Evidence recorded on : 07.03.2012, 22.05.2012, 13.06.2012, 26.06.2012, 07.07.2012, 30.07.2012, 31.07.2012, 22.08.2012, 24.08.2012, 04.09.2012, 18.09.2012, 19.09.2012, 08.10.2012, 09.10.2012, 05.11.2012, 06.11.2012, 29.11.2012, 01.12.2012, 15.12.2012, 17.12.2012, 17.01.2013, 18.01.2013, 13.02.2013, 14.02.2013, 06.03.2013, 07.03.2013, 08.03.2013, 11.04.2013, 06.05.2013, 24.05.2013, 27.05.2013, 05.06.2013, 02.07.2013, 04.07.2013, 03.08.2013, 03.09.2013, 03.10.2013, 04.10.2013, 01.11.2013, 06.11.2013, 29.11.2013, 30.11.2013, 21.12.2013, 20.01.2014, 22.01.2014, 12.02.2014, 04.04.2014, 03.06.2014, 19.06.2014.Arguments heard on : 13.10.2014, 03.11.2014, 17.11.2014, 20.11.2014, 29.11.2014, 01.12.2014, 30.12.2014 and 17.12.2014.Date fixed for Judgment : 20.12.2014. Judgment delivered on : 20.12.2014.

J U D G M E N T AND O R D E R

2

Every criminal trial is a voyage, in which truth is the quest and in such a voyage in the present case in hand, we may proceed to examine and oversee to what extent the truth so involved in this case, is discovered and established.

Before proceeding any further, it would be appropriate at this juncture, to depict in a nutshell, the brief factual matrix of the case, as follows:--

FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASEThe then Superintendent of Police CBI, ACB, Guwahati, submitted the FIR, dated 13.08.2008 stating inter-alia that credible informations were received to the effect that the accused Hassan Ali, while discharging his duties as the Branch Manager of the LICI, Maligaon Branch had entered into criminal conspiracy with some unknown persons with a view to cheat the LICI during the period of 2003 to 2004 by abusing his Official position as a public servant, that with fraudulent and dishonest intention and based on false and fabricated documents, issued a LIC Policy being No. 441351641, in the name of one Manowara Begum- a fictitious and non existing woman and two LIC Policies- being Nos. 441351624 and 441351622 in the name of one Fazar Ali, who was also a fictitious and non-existing person. Moreover, the said accused fraudulently and dishonestly processed false death claim, in respect of the aforesaid three policies.On receipt of the said FIR, regular case, being No. 13/2006 was registered against the accused Hassan Ali, the then Branch Manager of LICI, Maligaon Branch, Guwahati and upon completion of investigation, submitted charge sheet against the above named accused.Considering the Police Report and the relevant materials/documents submitted along with the charge sheet, including the Case Diary and upon hearing the ld. counsels of both sides, my ld. predecessor framed charges against the above named accused for offences u/s 420/471/468/467, IPC and u/s 13(2) R/W section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 1988, which on being read over and explained to the accused, he pleaded not guilty and that he claimed to be tried. In this case, as the materials on record discloses, the prosecution has examined as many as fifty one (51) witnesses, including the I.O.After closure of recording evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the statement of the accused, with reference to the evidence on record was recorded u/s 313 Cr.PC; wherein he stated that Smt. Vijaya Laxmi(P.W. 1), the then Executive Director Personnel, LICI is/was not the competent authority to accord sanction, that P.W. 1 did not examine the materials placed before her in proper perspective, that only the LIC Agent is the authorized person for opening new proposal, that the Ext. 5, Ext. 6, Ext. 7, Ext. 8 and Ext. 9 were not properly certified under the Banker’s Book of Evidence Act. 1891, that the proposal forms Ext. 71 and Ext. 72 were submitted by Barun Kalita, the then A.A.O, H.O.D. of N.B department to the BM for ratification and that on the basis of such recommendation, he ratified both the exhibits,- Ext. 71 and Ext. 72, as per Official procedure, as authorized person, that he did everything with respect to Exts. 73,74,75,76,77 and 78, as per Official procedure.

3

According to the accused, as he has inter-alia narrated in his statement recorded u/s 313, Cr.PC , that everything he did in connection with this case, as per proper Official procedure, that the examination of documents by P.W. 50 is/was not scientific and that his opinion was baseless, that the investigation was not conducted properly and that he was totally innocent.According to the accused, the claim papers were submitted by the claimants, which were settled by the BMC and Divisional Office and that he is/was falsely implicated in this case. Although, the accused stated that he would examine witness in his defence, but ultimately, he failed to produce and examine witnesses in his defence.I have perused the materials on record very carefully and cautiously and I have also heard the arguments advanced the ld. counsels of both sides. POINTS FOR DETERMINATION:

The points for determination in this case are:-

(i) Whether the accused Hassan Ali during the year 2003-04 cheated the LICI as its Branch Manager by dishonestly disbursing a total amount of Rs. 9,59,501/- as the death claim settlement on the basis of false and fabricated policies being Nos.- 1) 44135622 and 2) 441351624 with respect to non-existed Fazar Ali and Fagar Ali and 3) Policy No. 44135641 with respect to non-existed and imaginary Monowara Begum and thereby committed the offence punishable u/sec 420 IPC ?(ii) Whether the accused Hassan Ali, during the year 2003-04 fraudulently and dishonestly used as genuine certain forged and fabricated documents in processing the death claims with respect to above noted three policies and in opening the Account in Bank and encashing the cheques arising therefrom; knowing that these documents were forged and fabricated, with a view to misappropriate an amount of Rs. 9,59,501/- and thus he committed an offence punishable u/s 471, IPC?(iii) Whether the accused during the year 2003 to 2004 committed forgery by disbursing an amount of Rs. 9,59,501/- fraudulently and dishonestly against three LIC policies namely,-(a) Policy bearing No. 441351641, in the name of Manowara Begum.(b) Policy bearing No. 441381622, in the name of Fazar Ali.AND(c) Policy bearing No. 441351624 in the name of Fagar Ali, who were the non- existent and imaginary persons, on the basis of false and fabricated documents for the purpose of cheating and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 468, IPC?(iv) Whether the accused during 2003-04 forged the above referred documents, which were purported to be a valuable security for obtaining an amount of Rs.

4

9,59,501/- as death claim settlement from LICI, Maligaon Branch, on the basis of such forged and fabricated documents and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 467, IPC.?(v) Whether the accused being a public servant, discharging his duties as the then Branch Manager, LICI, Maligaon Branch, Guwahati, during the period of 2003 to 2004 committed criminal misconduct by corrupt and illegal means and thus he obtained pecuniary advantage to the extent of Rs. 9,59,501/-, as death claim settlement from LICI, Maligaon Branch, Guwahati, without any public interest, on the basis of false and fabricated documents and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 13(2), R/W section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?

DISCUSSIONS, REASONS AND DECISSION THEREOF:In order to bring home the charges against the accused, the prosecution has examined as many as fifty one(51) witnesses, including I.O., whereas none is examined from the side of the accused in his defence.A. WHETHER THE ACCUSED WAS A PUBLIC SERVANT: That the accused Hassan Ali joined as the Branch Manager of the LICI, Maligaon Branch, Guwahati in the year 2002 is clearly established from the evidence of Gautam Das(P.W. 6), who was the agent of the LICI, Maligaon Branch at the relevant time. Similarly, from the evidence of Ajit Chandra Das(P.W. 5), Sub staff/peon of the LICI Maligaon Branch; Kamala Kanta Choudhury(P.W. 7) a Grade-IV employee of LICI, Maligaon, who worked at the Maligaon Branch during the period of 1996 to March 2012 as daily wage worker; Bishnu Pada Nag(P.W. 10), the record clerk, LICI, Maligaon Branch, Hiren Chandra Nath(P.W. 14), the agent of LICI Maligaon Branch, Smt. Niyoti Deb(P.W.15), the then A.A.O. of the LICI Maligaon Branch, the accused Hassan Ali was the Branch Manager of LICI Maligaon Branch, Paresh Sharma(P.W. 16), the then Class-IV staff of LICI of Maligaon Branch; Swapan Kumar Gupta(P.W. 19) who was working as the Higher Assistant of Maligaon Branch, Babul Biswas(P.W. 21), the Higher Grade Assistant of the LICI Maligaon Branch; it clearly transpires that the accused Hassan Ali was the Branch Manager of the LICI Maligaon Branch.On the other hand, from the evidence of Sasanka Shekhar Bhuyan(P.W. 9), the Development Officer, LICI Bokakhat Branch, it is found that the accused Hassan Ali was the Branch Manager of the LICI Bokakhat Branch, since 1999.This piece of evidence that the accused Hassan Ali was the Branch Manager initially at the LICI Bokakhat Branch and then subsequently at the LICI Maligaon Branch is not disputed by the accused either in his statement recorded u/s 313,Cr.PC or even by the trend of Cross-examination of the witnesses concerned.Moreover, as per definitions U/s 2(C)(iii) of the P.C Act, 1988, any person in the Service or pay of a corporation established by or under the Central, provincial or State Act, etc. comes under the fold of the definition of a Public

Servant.

5

In view of above, the accused Hassan Ali undisputably being the Branch Managers of LICI Bokakhat and Maligaon Branch and that he having enjoyed the pay of the said corporation; he unhesitatingly must be held to be a public servant. B. WHETHER THE PROSECUTION SANCTION WAS VALID:It is raised by the accused, more particularly in his statement recorded u/sec 313 CrPC is that D. Vijaya Laxmi (P.W.1) is/was not the competent authority to accord the prosecution sanction against him and that she accorded prosecution sanction (Ext.1) without application of mind. In this connection we may refer to the evidence of D. Vijaya Laxmi(P.W. 1), the than Executive Director, LICI investment department, who accorded sanction against the accused Md. Hassan Ali, vide Ext. 1, who was posted as the Branch manager, LICI, Maligaon Branch under Guwahati Division, at the relevant time. According to P.W. 1, the accused was in the Administrative Officer’s scale and that she was the competent authority to remove him from service, as per LICI Staff Regulation. It is also stated by P.W. 1 that she was working as the Executive Director Personnel on 11.11.2008 and as such she was competent to remove him from service. PW.1 has also further added in her evidence that she examined materials placed before her, including the statement of the witness recorded u/s 161, Cr.PC and being so satisfied, applying her mind; she issued the sanction letter (Ext. 1)for prosecution against the said accused. Nothing reasonably could be elucidated from the cross-examination of this witness to discredit her. Moreover, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of

Maharashtra through CBI –Vs- Mahesh G Jain(2013)8 S.C.C119 that the Sanctioning Authority should prima-facie reach the satisfaction on Sanction.In view of above, I am of the considered opinion that the Prosecution Sanction in the instant case in hand was validly accorded by PW.1.C. WHETHER THE POLICY HOLDER’S WERE FICTITIOUS AND NON-

EXISTANT PERSONS.

Md. Kabidul Islam(P.W. 24) is the then Govt. Gaonburah of village Khairamari, under P.S. Dhing, District Nagaon. According to this witness, he has been performing his duties as a Govt. Gaonburah of the said village since 1999. As added by P.W. 24 in his evidence, the certificate marked ‘XX’ dated 23.07.2003 was not issued under his father’s signature, as his father died in January 2001. It may be mentioned here that in the said document, it is shown to have certified by Nazrul Islam, the then purported Govt. Gaonburah on 27.03.2003 to the effect that Fazar Ali, S/o Abdul Kadir, resident of village Khairamari was a School Teacher of Baralimari High School and that he instantly died on 02.03.2003, involving in a Motor-cycle accident at Ahatguri, on the N.H. 37, under Ahomgaon P.S. and that he met his tragic death instaneously. Ranjit Borah(P.W. 27), the then Junior Assistant, in the Office of the D.T.O. Nagaon has narrated in his evidence that the documents marked ‘XX/1’- the Driving Licence Bearing No. 18868/99/NGG, purportedly issued in the name of Fazar Ali from the D.T.O. Nagaon. As per Official Record of D.T.O. Nagaon, the same does not stand in

6

the name of Fazar Ali, rather it stands in the name of Dipankar Baishya, S/o A.K. Baishya, Christian Patti, Nagaon, vide ext. 111/2.According to Md. Phukanullah(P.W. 40), the then Postman of Kandulimari Post Office, Dhing Nagaon, on 28.10.2008, he attempted to make delivery of two Registered letters- 1) Bearing No. ES500124131IN, in the name of Monowara Begum(Ext. 131) and 2) Bearing No. ES500124128IN. Both the letters dated 16.10.2008 were addressed to them at village Kandulimari and P.S. Kandulimari, under the Nagaon District. But he could not find out the addresses, even after enquiry about them from the concerned gaonburah of the said village too. Accordingly, he returned the said registered letters(notice to evidence u/s 160, Cr.PC to appear before the I.O.).Krishna Das(P.W. 42), the then Superintendent of Police, Nagaon, Assam has narrated in his evidence that in response to the letter dated 06.03.2007 of the I.O(Ext. 131), he intimated that there was no Police Station named Ahomgaon in the Nagaon District, however there is one such Police Picket under the Dhing P.S. in the Nagaon District and that no such UD Case being No. 14/03 was registered in the Ahomgaon P.P.Sushil Kumar Dutta(P.W. 43), the then O/C of Dhing P.S. during period of January 2006 to June 2008, has narrated in his evidence that under the Dhing P.S. there were/are two Petrol Posts- namely Ahomgaon Petrol Post and Dumdumia Petrol Post, that cases are registered in the Police Stations only, that no cases are authorized to be registered in the Out-Post or Petrol Post. On the purported Post Mortem Report of the deceased Fazar Ali, aged about 28 years appearing to have issued from the B.P. Civil Hospital, Nagaon on 03.03.2003 in connection with Ahomgaon P.S. U.D. Case No. 14/03; he has stated that there is no such Ahomgaon P.S. in the Nagaon District and therefore registration of the above noted UD Case vide Ext. 135, extract copy of GD Entry No. 94, dated 02.03.2003, in connection with the death of Fazar Ali, involving in an accident vide 136 are all false and fabricated documents.Jinnatara Ahmed(P.W. 45), the Statistical Assistant of the Office of the Joint Director, Health Service, Nagaon has deposed in her evidence that the death certificate being No. 0072860 in the name of Fazar Ali showing the date of Registration 10.03.2003 and the death certificate No. 0064200 in the name of Monowara Begum showing the date of Registration as 10.03.2004 were not allotted to Bhugeswari Phukanani Civil Hospital, Nagaon from the Office of the Joint Director, Health Service, Nagaon as the Official records reveal.Dr. Sarbeswar Borah(P.W. 23), the then Superintendent of B.P. Civil Hospital, Nagaon has narrated in his evidence that vide Ext. 89, he informed that on 03.03.2003 no Post-Mortem was conducted with respect to the so called deceased Fazar Ali and that accordingly, no such Post-Mortem report was issued. He has further added in his evidence that vide his letter dated 10.07.2007 addressed to the CBI, ACB, Guwahati, no death certificate was issued under Sl. No. 0072860, in the name of so called Fazar Ali, showing that he expired on 02.03.2003 and that no certificate was issued under Sl. No. 0064200, in the name of so called Monowara Begum, showing that she expired on 19.03.2004.

7

Ganesh Chandra Kalita(P.W. 25), Junior Assistant in the B.P. Civil Hospital, Nagaon has narrated in his evidence that as per Ext. 110, no death certificates in the names of Fazar Ali or Monowara Begum were issued from B.P. Civil Hospital, Nagaon, under Sl. No. 0072860 and 0064200 and that those were not written by him.Anishur Rahman Choudhury(P.W. 32), the then In-Charge Inspector Of Schools, Nagaon has deposed that vide his letter Ext. 122, he informed the CBI Inspector, Guwahati that there is/was no such School in the name of Baralimari High School under the Nagaon District Circle, since 1992, as per his Official Record.Further it is the specific evidence of Sushil Kumar Dutta(P.W. 43), the then O/C of Dhing P.S. under Nagaon District that the Carbon copy of the purported F.I.R, dated 02.03.2003 of the Ahomgaon P.S.(Ext. 134) certificate regarding registration of U.D. Case No. 14/2003 purportedly issued by the O/C Dhing P.S. and extract copy of purported G.D. Entry No. 94, dated 02.03.2003 of Ahomgaon P.S. regarding death of Fazar Ali in an accident and the Post Mortem Report with respect to Fazar Ali(document marked ‘X’) are all false and fake documents. The evidence on record, as discussed above, has clearly, clinchingly and credentially established that the policy holders Fazar Ali and/or Fagar Ali and Monowara Begum were fictitious, imaginary and non-existent persons.

D. MOTIVE BEHIND THE OPENING OF THE THREE LIC POLICIES: APPARENT ON THE FACE OF RECORD.From the evidence on record, more particularly, as testified by Surendra Nath Sharma(P.W. 8), the then Branch Manager of the Bokakhat Branch, that the three LIC Policies were opened at the Bokakhat Branch; detail particulars of which are as

follows:-

1) The LIC Policy No. 441351622(Ext. 68), commencing from 28.02.2001, for a sum assured Rs. 1,00,000/- was opened at the Bokakhat Branch in the name of Fazar Ali R/O village Khairamari, P.S. Kandulimari, District Nagaon, its nominee was his brother(b) H. Ali.As per the Proposal Form(Ext. 71), Fazar Ali, S/O Late Abdul Kadir, was aged about 26 years; his brother Hussain Ali, aged about 40 years was his nominee. Agent’s code number was 345/44F and D.O. Code No. was 775/44F. Proposal No. was blank. Fazar Ali, as it transpires from Ext. 71, appears to have shown as Service Holder, as Assistant Teacher and his present employer is shown as the Inspector Of Schools, Nagaon, and that his Educational Qualification is shown as B.A.2) The LIC Policy No. 441351624,(Ext. 69) commencing from 28.02.2001, for a sum assured of Rs. 1,00,000/- was opened at the Bokakhat Branch, in the name of Fagar Ali, vill- Khairamari, P.O. Kandulimari, District Nagaon and its nominee was his brother H.Ali.

8

In the Proposal Form(Ext. 72), under proposal No. 4563 Fazar Ali is shown as aged about 26 years(not Fagar Ali), his father’s name was shown as Late Abdul Kadir, nominee was his brother Hussain Ali, aged about 40 years and the agents Code No. was 268/44F and D.O Code No. was 688/44F. He is shown to be the Service Holder-as Assistant Teacher; Employer being Inspector Of Schools, Nagaon, his Educational Qualification is shown as B.A. Thus, from the particulars given in the aforesaid documents, Fazar

Ali and Fagar Ali appears to be one and the same person of the same locality.

3) The LIC Policy No. 441351641, commencing from 28.02.2001, for a sum assured for Rs. 1,00,000/- was opened at the Bokakhat Branch in the name of Monowara Begum, D/O Abdul Khaleque, village Kandulimari, P.O. Kandulimari, District Nagaon; its nominee was Hussain Ali, her husband. Thus, it is found that the aforesaid three policies commence on and

from the same date i.e. 28.02.2001. From the evidence of Niyoti Dev(P.W. 15) the then A.A.O. of the LICI Maligaon Branch, it transpires that Dummy docket (Ext. 97) in respect of Policy No. 441351641 on the life of Monowara Begum was prepared with the permission of the accused Hassan Ali, the then Branch Manager of LICI, Maligaon Branch on 20.02.2004. According to P.W. 15, the dummy bag is opened when the original Policy bag is not available in the Record Book of the Branch Office. In the event that the Policy is originally issued by other Branch, in that case, on the intimation of the said Branch to that effect that the original policy bag is not available, the dummy bag is prepared. From the Ext. 97, it transpires that the said Policy was transferred from Bokakhat Branch Office and that the signature of the claimants on the discharge voucher was attested by Smt. Rumi Nath, the then A.O. of Maligaon Branch Office.From true extract of the evidence of age of Fazar Ali(Ext. 75), it appears to have certified as to correctness of the proposer’s age by agent Amarjit Baruah and the Development Officer, whose signature is illegible on 28.02.2001. Agents Confidential Report/Moral Hazard Report(Ext. 73) appears to have been submitted by Amarjit Baruah on 28.02.2001. Declaration by the Proposer Fazar Ali was witnessed by said Amarjit Baruah under the agent’s Code No. 395/44F, that the Proposer Fazar Ali had signed in his presence was certified by Dr. S.K. Debnath, authorized Medical Examiner, under Code No. 02/44F with respect to Ext. 68.The True Extract on the life of so called Fazar Ali(Ext. 76) with respect to his purported other Policy was not signed by Agent/Development Officer. The space for signature or certification is/was left blank. It is also apparent from the Agent’s Confidential Report/Moral Hazards Report(Ext. 74), weherein, the agent’s signature is illegible, although it is dated as 28.02.2001. The signature appearing as witness to the declaration by the Proposer Fazar Ali in Ext. 74 is also found illegible, although it is dated 28.02.2001. The certificate that the Proposer has signed in presence of the Medical Officer was signed by Dr. S.K. Debnath, the authorized Medical Examiner of LICI of the Code No. 02/44F, vide Ext. 72/2.

9

On a perusal of the proposal for insurance forms on the life of Fazar Ali(Ext. 71 and Ext. 72) it is apparent that both proposals were ratified by the accused, as the then Branch Manager, Bokakhat Branch. Both the policies of Fazar Ali and Fagar Ali were however, transferred from Bokakhat Branch to Maligaon Branch, where the accused was subsequently transferred and posted, as it is found from Ext. 79 and Ext. 82 (letters, issued addressing Fazar Ali, informing the matter of transferring the policies). Further, as it transpires clearly from the evidence of Surendra Sarma(P.W. 8) that the proposal review slips(Exts. 77 and 78) with respect to the above referred two policies of Fazar Ali and Fagar Ali were underwritten and verified by the accused.Although, Dr. Surjya Kumar Debnath(P.W. 47), the then Medical Examiner of LICI, Bokakhat is declared hostile in this case, however, in his examination in chief, he has admittedly stated that he issued the Ext. 139 and Ext. 140(the Medical Examiner’s Report dated 28.02.2001) and the proposal forms(Ext. 71 and Ext. 72) with respect to Fazar Ali without examining the person concerned and that he even do/does not know the person, named Fazar Ali. Though he(P.W. 47) has denied during Cross-examination by Prosecution that he stated before the I.O. that he had put his signatures in Exts. 71, 72, 139 and Ext. 140 at the request of Accused Hassan Ali, the then Branch Manager, LICI Bokakhat Branch for whom it was stated by the accused that he knew him well and that he was physically fit; this piece of previous statement is however confirmed by the I.O. Manjeet Kr. Barbhuyan(P.W. 51)in a positive way in his evidence.

Be that as it may, the testimony of Dr. Surjya Kumar Debnath(P.W. 47), unhesitatingly establishes the circumstance that he submitted the medical examiner’s reports(Exts. 139 and 140) and proposal forms(Exts. 71 and 72) with respect to Fazar Ali and Fagar Ali without examining him/them.Further, in the light of discussions on the relevant laws on the Hostile Witness, as subsequently discussed, I am also prompted to hold that the P.W. 47 was induced to submit the Exhibits 71, 72, 139 and 140 at the request of the accused, who was the then Branch Manager of LICI, Bokakhat Branch.According to Surendra Nath Sarma(P.W. 8), the then Senior Manager LICI Division Office Guwahati, the underwriting decisions with respect to the proposal for insurance with respect to the life of Fazar Ali(Exts. 71 and 72) was taken by the accused Hassan Ali, the then Branch Manager of the Bokakhat Branch.Moreover, the proposal review slips dated05.03.2001 with respect to life assured Fazar Ali and Fagar Ali(Exts. 77 and 78 respectively) were verified by the accused. P.W. 8 is further of the version that the extract from evidence of age with respect to the policy of Fazar Ali(Ext. 76) is unsigned by the concerned agent/Development Officer. In other words, exhibit-76 is devoid of prescribed certificate by concerned agent or Development Officer to support the correctness of the informations furnished by the proposer.Testimony of P.W. 8 as well as the Ext. 76 discloses that the same was verified by the accused.

10

This clearly establishes that even then, on the basis of such improper and invalid document, the insurance policies in favour of the proposer Fazar Ali was issued on the ratification of the accused.The entire circumstances, as enumerated above shows the ill-motive of the accused, being instrumental in accepting the proposals and in opening the three LIC policies.

E. HOSTILE WITNESS:

At the cost of repetition, it may be added here that besides Ajit Chandra Das(P.W. 5) and Kamala Kanta Choudhury(P.W. 7); Swapan Kumar Seal(P.W. 3), the then agent of LICI, Maligaon Branch is declared hostile and that during cross-examination by prosecution he has denied his previous statement before the I.O. that while he had entered into the Office room of the accused Hassan Ali, the then Branch Manager of Maligaon LICI, he had seen that one person was sitting in a chair in front of him, that the accused introduced hm with the said person as Md. Hussain Ali, the nominee with respect to Policy No. 44135622, that the said policy holder Fazar Ali having died in the meantime, the said Hussain Ali having duly filled up the discharge death claim voucher(Form No. 3801), the accused had requested him to put his signature in the witness column of the Form and that on such request of the accused, he put his signature in the form in its witness column in the office room of the accused itself. Be it recorded here that Manjeet Kumar Borgohain(P.W. 51), the I.O. has already confirmed in a positive way the previous statement of Swapan Kumar Seal (P.W. 3). Similarly, Dr. Surjya Kumar Debnath(P.W. 47) although admittedly stated in his evidence that he issued the Medical Examiner’s reports dated 28.02.2001(Exts. 139 and 140) and the proposal forms(Exts. 71 and 72) with respect to Fazar Ali without examining the person concerned; but during cross-examination he is found to have denied his statement before the I.O. to the effect that he had put his signature in Exts. 71, 72, 139 and 140 at the request of the accused, the then Branch Manager of the LICI Bokakhat Branch.This piece of evidence is also found to have confirmed by the I.O. Manjeet Kumar Borgohain(P.W. 51) in his evidence.The Ld. Special P.P. has submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

Himanshu @ Chintu(Appellant) Vs. State(NCT of Delhi), reported in (2011) 2SCC 36, relying upon its earlier decision in Koli Lakhman Bhai Chana Bhai Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in (1999) 8SCC 624, held that the evidence of hostile witness remains admissible evidence and it is open to Court to rely upon the dependable part of

11

such evidence, which is found to be acceptable and duly corroborated by some other evidence available on record.It is pertinent to record here that as deposed by Hiren Chandra Nath(P.W. 4), he was induced by the accused to introduce Hussain Ali in the opening of the S.B. Account at the U.Co. Bank, Maligaon Branch.Further, from the evidence of Ranjana Nath(P.W. 33), it is also clear that the accused also requested and induced her to attest the specimen signature of Monowara Begum.In the instant case, as already discussed, considering the circumstance that the accused even accepted the LIC proposals without having certificate from the

concerned agent/development officer in Ext. 76, that the policies were opened initially at the LICI Bokakhat Branch, while he was posted as its Branch Manager, coupled with the very significant circumstances that these policies were also transferred to the LICI Maligaon Branch, Guwahati on his subsequent transfer to that Branch; and considering his motive in opening the three LIC policies, as already discussed, it must be reasonably confidently and credentially accepted and relied upon the material evidence of the hostile witness- namely evidence of P.W. 3 to the effect that he had put his signature as a witness in the death voucher claim at the request of the accused and that Dr. S.K. Debnath(P.W. 47), the Medical Officer also put his signature in Exts. 71, 72, 139 and 140 at the request of the accused.

F. IRRESPONSIBLE ACTS OF LIC AGENTS DEVELOPMENT OFFICERS AND THE MEDICAL OFFICERNow, Mridusmita Baruah(P.W. 38) the then Agent of the LICI Bokakhat Branch has admittedly stated that her Agency Code No. was 268/44F and that in the proposal for insurance of own life of Fazar Ali(Ext. 72) Agents Code No. was 268/44F was mentioned. P.W. 38 has further stated in her evidence that she does not know the Proposer Fazar Ali and that the Proposal Form(Ext. 72) and Agents Confidential Report/Moral Hazards Report are not in her handwriting and that the signature appearing in Ext. 74, as the Agent’s signature is not her signature, but she has admittedly stated in her evidence that she received commission and bonus on account of opening the Policy through the proposal(Ext. 72), on life of Fazar Ali. That being the position, that she (Mridusmita Baruah) was the Agent with respect to the life of so called Fazar Ali, cannot be denied and that for that matter her liability in the matter also cannot be brushed aside.

12

Be that as it may, from the true extract of the evidence of age submitted by the Proposer Fazar Ali(Ext. 76), what we find is that none of the Agent/Development Officer have certified that the information furnished by the Proposer are correct and that the Proposer has put his signature before them. Even then, as it appears from the evidence of Surendra Sarma(P.W. 8), such proposals were ratified by the accused vide Exhibits 71/1 and 72/1. From the above discussions, it is evidently found established that the above referred three policies were opened at the instance of the accused at the Bokakhat Branch of the LICI, while the accused was posted as its Branch Manager and that the same were transferred to the LICI Maligaon Branch, with a definition purpose, as it will be seen subsequently, while he was also transferred to the Branch.Similarly, evidence of Amarjit Baruah(P.W. 39) is that although, he was a LIC Agent of the Bokakhat Branch, his agency was taken care of by his brother-in-law Brojen Patowary(since deceased). According to him(P.W. 39), he even does not know his agency Code Number. It is also added by P.W. 39 in his evidence that the signatures appearing in Ext. 73(Agents Confidential Report/Moral Hazards Report), in true extract form the evidence of age, etc. with respect to the proposer Fazar Ali(Ext. 75) are not his signatures and that he also did not know whether his brother-in-law(Brojen Patowary) put his signature as Amarjit Baruah in Ext. 73 and Ext. 75.Deepak Chandra Duwara(P.W. 46), the then Development Officer of the LICI Bokakhat Branch has admittedly stated that his Code No. was 688 and that he has showed his ignorance as to who has prepared the Agents Confidential Report/Moral Hazards report(Ext. 74)of the LICI with respect to the Policy No. 441351624 in the name of Fazar Ali and that he does not know the Proposer Fazar Ali. According to P.W. 46, the Policy No. 441351624 in the name of Fazar Ali was credited into his business and that the incentive was considered in his business target. That being the position, the liability of the Development Officer(P.W. 46) with respect to Agents Confidential Report/Moral Hazards Report(Ext. 74) cannot be reasonably ignored.As already discussed, according to Dr. S. K. Debnath, the Medical Officer(P.W. 47), he admittedly submitted the reports Exts. 71, 72, 139 and 140 without examining the persons concerned.Thus irresponsible conduct on the part of Mridusmita Baruah(P.W. 38), agent and Deepak Chandra Dwarah(P.W. 46), the then Development Officer LICI, who even admittedly used to enjoy commission, bonus and incentives etc. with respect to the above-referred three policies are apparent on the face of the materials on record.On the other hand, negligence or irresponsible conduct on the part of the above named Medical Officer is also apparent on the face of the record.

G. DISPOSAL OF CLAIMS WITH RESPECT TO THE THREE PURPORTED LIC POLICIES:

13

(i) On processing of the claim. According to Niyoti Deb(P.W. 15), who was posted at the claims Department, as the A.A.O. of the Maligaon Branch during the period of 1997 to 2005 has narrated in her evidence that during that period accused Hassan Ali was the Branch Manager of LICI Maligaon Branch and thus she was acquainted with his signature and handwriting. This witness has further narrated in her evidence that Ext. 92 is the claim payment voucher with respect to the policy No. 441351641, on the life assured Monowara Begum for Rs. 3,20,526/-. Nominee Hussain Ali is shown as the husband of Monowara Begum. Further, according to P.W. 15, Ext. 98 is the claim payment voucher with respect to the Policy No. 441351622 on the life assured Fazar Ali for Rs. 3,18,288/-. In response to such claim of Hussain Ali, vide letter dated 27.08.2003(Ext. 99) it was informed about the processing to Hussain Ali, the purported brother of Fazar Ali from the LICI Maligaon Branch vide Ext. 99 being the nominee of the said policy, Ext. 101 is the claim payment voucher with respect to Policy No. 441351624 on the life assured Fazar Ali for Rs. 4,18,210/-. Hussain Ali being the nominee, with respect to the said Policy and being related as the brother of deceased Fazar Ali of Sijubari, Guwahati-38, vide letter dated 28.03.2003 from the LICI Maligaon Branch(Ext. 102) was intimated about the claim, made by him with respect to said policy.Thus, as already discussed, on the purported death of non-existent and imaginary persons Fazar Ali and Monowara Begum; said Hussain Ali, resident of Sijubari, Guwahati-38 laid claims for payment as their nominees. It is pertinent to mention here that said Hussain Ali is shown as the brother of Fazar Ali and husband of Monowara Begum.

Most significantly, the most astounding element what I found in this case is that the accused Hassan Ali in the letter pad of Life Insurance Company of LICI, Maligaon Branch, had certified on 31.3.2003 in the matter of opening a S/B account at the UCO Bank, Maligaon Branch that he knew well the claimant Hussain Ali since long. It transpires from the Ext.120/2, the Note Sheet in the Guwahati Divisional Office of the LICI that Investigation Report with respect of Policy No. 441351624 in favour of the claimant was submitted by the accused Hassan Ali. With respect to two policies of Fazar Ali, from the claimant’s statement made by Hussain Ali (Ext.171 & Ext.158), it is found that the Head Master of Baralimari High School, PO- Baralimari, Dist- Nagaon was the witness. It is to be noted here that we have already found from the record that there is no such school in the name ‘Baralimari High School’ in the Nagaon District. Further we have already found that the Death Certificates and the Post Mortem Reports are also fake and not genuine and that the other claimant’s statement (ext. 108) with respect to Policy No.441351641 on the life of Monowara Begum, as made by Hussain Ali was witnessed by Ahomgaon State Dispensary but who was the officer concerned, putting such short signature, what was his designation were not disclosed.

14

We have already found that the Dummy Bag with respect to the policy of Monowara Begum was permitted to be opened by the accused Hassan Ali. But most surprisingly, as it transpires from the evidence of Niyoti Deb (PW-15) such permission was accorded by the accused under his signature (Ext.101/3) without having the designation of the person concerned, who witnessed the claimant’s statement (Ext.108).

(ii) ON OPEINING THE ACCOUNT IN THE NAME OF THE CLAIMANT HUSSAIN ALIAs testified by Paresh Ch. Das (PW-31) that the S/B account No.261033 was opened by Shekhar Sen Gupta, the then Manager of UCO Bank, Maligaon Branch, as per account opening form (Ext.6). According to Shekhar Sen Gupta, the said account was opened in the name of Hussain Ali. S/O- Lt. Abdul Kadir of Sijubari, Guwahati-38. On 31.3.2003, i.e. on the Annual Closing Day on the request of accused Hassan Ali, the then Branch Manager, LICI, Maligaon Branch. It is also added by PW-31 in his evidence that the accused Hassan Ali also sent the certificate(Ext. 8) in the letter pad of the LICI Maligaon Branch to the effect that he knew Hussain Ali since long and that the accused Hassan Ali also himself talked to the Sr. Manager regarding opening of the account on that day and accordingly, the account was opened. The evidence of Hiren Chandra Nath(P.W. 14), the then Agent of LICI Maligaon Branch is that he introduced Hussain Ali in the matter of opening the Account No. 261033, putting his signature(Ext. 6/2) at the request of the accused Hassan Ali, who was the Branch Manager of the LICI Maligaon Branch, on the representation by him, that he knew him well, although he did not know Hussain Ali and that he had never seen him.Thus, it is clearly established that the Account was opened at a very opportune moment, the day the on Bank closing day, at the request of the accused.

(iii) ON MAKING PAYMENT INTO THE ACCOUNT THROUGH CHEQUES AND WITHDRAWAL THEREFROM.From the testimonies of Sushanta Dhar(P.W. 18), the then H.G.A. of the LICI Maligaon Branch and Parag Dhar Kalita(PW. 35), the then H.G.A. of Maligaon Branch, we find that the three(3) cheques- 1) Cheque No. 936785, dated 31.03.2003 for Rs. 3,20,687/-, 2) Cheque No. 316062(Ext. 106), dated 31.03.2003, for Rs. 3,20, 526/- and 3) Cheque No. 938769(Ext. 107), dated 27.08.2003 for Rs. 3,18,188/- drawn on U.Co. Bank, Maligaon Branch were issued in favour of Hussain Ali, under account No. 261033 of the U.Co. Bank, Maligaon Branch, against death claims.Ranjana Nath(P.W. 33) has admittedly stated that she attested the LIC Policy No. 441351641 with respect to life assured Monowara Begum(Ext. 123) and that she also attested the specimen signatures in the letter head of LICI Maligaon Branch of Monowara Begum(Ext.124). According to this witness although for such specimen signature, presence of the person, whose signature is attested is required to be present, she attested the same at the request of the Brnach Manager , Hassan Ali(the accused).

15

Thus, from the testimony of P.W. 33, it is clear that the specimen signature of Monowara Begum in Ext. 124 were not taken in her presence.Testimonies are also in abundance in this case that the amount were withdrawn from the said account at the instance of the accused and he accepted the encashed amount, as deposed by Gautam Das(P.W. 6), Kamala Kanta Choudhury(P.W. 7) under what special circumstances, the accused had the to operate the S.B. Account of Hussain Ali, no plansible explanation appears from the materials on record.H. THE ACCUSED HASSAN ALI WAS INSTRUMENTAL IN OPOENING THE THREE POLICIES and thus he enjoyed the fruits in a fraudulent

way.In the light of above discussions, it is apparently established by the Prosecution that the three policies in question were opened at the instance of accused Hassan Ali exerting his influence as the branch Manager of LICI; showed the non-esistent life assured untimely dead within a short span of opening the purported LIC policies, procuring and using false and fabricated documents and after disposal of such false claim, influencing his official position, he enjoyed the fruits of such purported policies. I. CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCEIn Ramesh(Appellant) vs State through Inspector General Of

Police(Respad) 2014(4) GLT SC 32 at page 40; the Hon’ble Supreme Court made referred to its earlier decision in Govinda Reddy and another Vs State of Mysore AIR 1960 SC 29; wherein it was observed that- “ The mode of evaluating circumstantial evidence has been stated by this Court in Hanumant Govind Nargundkar Vs State of Madhya Pradesh and it is as follows: “It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should, in the first instance, be fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.”Again in Vabeiki Pachorana(Appellant) Vs State of Mizoram reported in (2014)4 GLR 61 at page 68; the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court has referred to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Earabhadrappa Vs State of Karnataka reported in (1983)2 SCC 330, wherein it was held that in a case in which the evidence is purely of a circumstantial nature, the facts and circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is sought to be drawn must fully established beyond any reasonable doubt and the facts and circumstances should not only be consistent with the guilt of the

16

accused but they must be entirely incompatible with the innocence of the accused and must exclude every reasonable hypothesis with his innocence. In the instant case in hand, as already discussed; following chain of circumstances without any missing link, unerringly emerges, conclusively suggesting the guilt of the accused-1) The three policies in question were opened at the LICI Bokakhat Branch, at the instance and initiative of the accused in the names of two non-existent and imaginary persons while the accused Hassan Ali was posted at the LICI Bokakhat Branch as its Manager and that the same were transferred to the LICI Maligaon Branch, while he was transferred and posted as the Manager of LICI Maligaon Branch.2) That the necessary papers- like procuring agent’s signature in the required and essential testimonials as witness, medical documents, etc. in the matter of opening the LIC Policies, were procured at the instance of the accused.3) That accepted the proposal of Fazar Ali, even considering the improper and invalid document(Ext. 76), for which the required certificate was unsigned either by the agent or the Development Officer.4) That the accused exerted his influence in opening the S.B. Account, which was opened on the Bank closing day.5) That the accused made transactions from the said Bank Account withdrew the amount through cheques and received the encashed amount by himself.All these circumstances conclusively establishes that the accused opened the LIC Policies in question in the names of two non-existent persons practicing fraud and used such fake and forged documents in his official position, as the Branch Manager of the LICI as genuine and thus he enjoyed the fruits of those policies. In the light of discussions made above, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has been able to establish its case that the accused Hassan Ali has

dishonestly cheated the LICI to the extent of total amount of Rs.9,59,501/-, opening the LIC policies in the names of non-existent and imaginary persons, disbursed and enjoyed the fruits of these policies, dishonestly using the forged, fraudulent and fabricated documents, as genuine under his official influence as the Manager of Branch offices of LICI, for the purpose of cheating and thus he committed criminal misconduct by corrupt and illegal means and thus he obtained the pecuniary advantage to the extent of Rs. 9,59,501/-. Thus, the accused Hassan Ali is found and held guilty of offence u/s

420/467/468/471 IPC and U/Secs. 13(2) r/w Sec.13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act, 1988.Heard the accused on the sentence.He still submits that he is innocent.

He has also further pleaded that he is the sole bread earner of his family, that his only son is a college going student under the Gauhati University, who is prosecuting LLB Course and that his wife is also a kidney patient.

Under the above circumstances, he orally prays that his case should be considered leniently. In Vineet Narain and ors. –v- Union of India and another (1998)1 SCC 226, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows :

17

“Today, corruption in our country not only posses a grave danger to the concept of constitutional governance, it also threatens the very foundation of the Indian democracy and the Rule of Law. The magnitude of corruption in our public life is incompatible with the concept of a socialist secular democratic republic. It cannot be disputed that where corruption begins all rights end. Corruption devalues human rights, chokes development and undermines justice, liberty, equality, fraternity which are the core values in our Preambular vision. Therefore, the duty of the court is that any anti-corruption law has to be interpreted and worked out in such a fashion as to strengthen the fight against corruption.” In Balakrishna Duttatrya Kumbhar v. State of Maharashtra (2012) 12 SCC 384, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that corruption is not only a punishable offence but also “Undermines human rights, indirectly violating them, and systematic corruption, is a human rights’ violation in itself, as it leads to systematic economic crimes.”Again in State of Gujarat & aother v. Justice R.A. Mehta (Retd.) & ors. (2013)3 SCC 1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows:

“Corruption in a society is required to be detected and eradicated at the earliest as it shakes “ the socio-economic-political system in an otherwise healthy, wealthy, effective and vibrating society”. Liberty cannot last long unless the State is able to eradicate corruption from public life. Corruption is a bigger threat than external threat to the civil society as it corrodes the vitals of our polity and society. Corruption is instrumental in not proper implementation and enforcement of policies adopted by the Government. Thus, it is not merely a fringe issue but a subject-matter of grave concern and requires to be decisively dealt with.” Considering the entire circumstances, more particularly that the accused was earlier convicted by this Special Court in connection with Spl. Case No. 28/05 and Spl. Case No. 26/06 of similar nature, the accused is sentenced to undergo R.I. for 4 years 6 months and a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default, R.I. for 6 months for offence U/S 420 IPC;

R.I. for 4 years and fine of Rs.10,000/- in default, R.I. for 6 months U/S 467 IPC.

R.I. for 4 years and fine of Rs.10,000/- in default, R.I. for 6 months offence under 468 IPC.

R.I. for 2 years and fine of Rs.5,000/- in default R.I. for 3 moths U/S 471 IPC.

The accused is also further sentenced to R.I. for 4 years and 6 months and a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default R.I. for 6 months U/S 13(2) r/w sec 13(1)(d) of the prevention of corruption Act 1988. The sentences are to run concurrently. The period of detention, if any, undergone by the accused, shall be set off. Supply a free copy of judgment to the accused immediately. Send copies of this judgment and order to the District Magistrate, Kamrup(M) and also to the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court, Guwahati.

Before parting with the case record, what I find is that because of the irresponsible conduct and irregular affairs on the part of Mridusmita Baruah and Amarjit Baruah, both the then agents of the LICI, Bokakhat Branch and Dipak Ch. Duarah, the then Development Officer, LICI, Bokakhat Branch, led the LICI to sustain such a huge loss.

It may be recorded here that the agent Mridusmita Baruah and Dipak Ch. Duarah enjoyed incentive, commission, bonus etc. with respect to the policies

18

in question, but they failed to take due care and caution so far their liabilities are concerned.

In view of their such irresponsible and negligent conduct; the matter is forwarded to the Regional Manager, LICI for taking appropriate actions against those erring personnels. Let a copy of this judgment and order be forwarded to the Regional Manager, LICI for appropriate necessary action on the administrative side.

On the other hand, the then Medical Officer, S.K. Debnath very irresponsibly issued the required medical certificates without examining the person concerned for which such negligent act, the LICI had to sustain a huge pecuniary loss.

Bring the matter to the notice of the Director of Health Services, Assam, Hengrabari, Guwahati, sending a copy of this order for taking appropriate administrative action against him too. The seized documents may be retained in safe custody until further order.Given under my hand and seal of this court on this 20th day of December,2014.DICTATED AND CORRECTED BY ME: Special Judge, CBI, Assam, Additional CBI Court No.2, Chandmari, Guwahati-3. (P.C. Das)Special Judge, CBI, Assam,Additional CBI Court No.2, Chandmari, Guwahati-3.

19

A P P E N D I X

1) Prosecution Witnesses:- 1) D. Vijayalakshmi,

2) Bhagyamal Dutta,

3) Swapan Kr. Seal,

4) Alok Roy,

5) Ajit Ch. Das,

6) Gautam Das,

7) Kamala Kt. Choudhury,

8) Surendra Sarmah,

9) Sasanka Sekhar Bhuyan,

10) Bishnu Pada Nag,

11) Golap Ch. Dutta,

12) Barnali Das,

13) Usha Ranjan Bhattacharjee,

14) Hiren Ch. Nath,

15) Niyati Deb,

16) Paresh Sarmah,

17) Dilip Kr. Das,

18) Susanta Dhar,

19) Swapan Kr. Gupta,

20) Dipak Kalita,

21) Babul Biswas,

22) Saidul Hussain,

23) Sarbeswar Borah,

24) Kabidul Islam,

20

25) Ganesh Ch. Kalita,

26) Rubul Talukdar,

27) Ranjit Borah,

28) Manoranjan Seal,

29) Ramoni Mohan Baruah,

30) Paresh Ch. Das,

31) Sekhar Sengupta,

32) Anisur Rahman Choudhury,

33) Ranjana Nath,

34) Prakash Mishra,

35) Parag Dhar Kalita,

36) Birendra Kr. Sarmah,

37) Abu Siddique Md. Taher,

38) Mridusmita Baruah,

39) Amarjit Baruah,

40) Md. Fukanulla,

41) Dhrubanada Das,

42) Krishna Das,

43) Sushil Kr. Dutta,

44) Debasish Choudhury,

45) Jinnat Ara Ahmed,

46) Dipak Ch. Duarah,

47) Surjya Kr.Devnath,

48) Adul Karim,

49) Indrani Das,

50) Bhakti Pada Mishra,

51) Manjit Kr. Buragohain,

2) Defence Witness :- NIL.

21

3) Prosecution Exhibits :- Ext. 1 – Prosecution Sanction Order,

Ext. 2 – Discharge Voucher,

Ext. 3 – Seizure Memo,

Ext. 4 – Seized Statement of accused,

Ext. 5 – Certificate,

Ext. 6 - Certified copy of Opening Form,

Ext. 7 – Certified copy of Specimen Signature Card,

Ext. 8 – Certified copy of Character Certificate,

Ext. 9, 9(1) to 9(10) – Certified copies of Cheques,

Ext. 10 to 14 – Cheques,

Ext. 15 – S/B account pay-in-slip,

Ext. 16 – Cheque,

Ext. 17 – Death intimation letter,

Ext. 18 to 65 – Nil,

Ext. 66 & 67 – Cheques,

Ext.68 to 70 – Policy Certificates,

Ext. 71 & 72 – Proposal Form,

Ext. 73 & 74 – Agent Confidential Report,

Ext. 75 &76 – Signatures of Fazar Ali,

Ext. 77 & 78 – Proposal Review Slip,

Ext. 79 to 83 – Letter,

Ext. 84 to 87 – Cheque,

Ext. 88 & 89 – Letter,

Ext. 90 – Certified true copy of Photostat Entry Register,

Ext. 91 – Post Mortem issue register,

Ext. Marked ‘X’ – Purported Post Mortem Report,

Ext. 92 – Claim Payment Voucher,

Ext. 93 – Forwarding of payment voucher,

Ext. 94 – Calculation Sheet,

22

Ext. 95 – Discharge Voucher,

Ext. 96 – Note Sheet,

Ext. 97 – Form,

Ext. 98 – Payment Voucher,

Ext. 99 – Forwarding Payment Voucher,

Ext. 100 – Calculating Sheet,

Document Marked ‘Y’ – Photocopy of Death Certificate,

Ext. 101 – Claim Payment,

Ext. 102 – Forwarding Payment,

Ext. 103 – Calculating Sheet,

Ext. 104 – Discharge Voucher,

Ext. 105 – Attested copy of Death Certificate,

Document Marked ‘Z’ – Photocopy of Seizure Memo,

Ext.106 & 107 – Cheque,

Ext. 108 – Claim Statement,

Ext.109 – Letter,

Ext. 110 – Certified Photocopy (4 sheets),

Document Marked ‘XX’ – Signature appearing certificate,

Document Marked ‘XX/1’- Photocopy of Driving License,

Ext. 111 – Letter,

Ext. 112 – Status Report,

Ext. 113 – Forwarding Letter,

Ext. 114 – Attested copy of Note Sheet,

Ext. 115 & 116 – Status Report,

Ext. 117 - Forwarding Letter,

Ext.118 – Attested copy of Note,

Ext. 119 – Letter (2 sheets),

Ext. 120 – Claim Admission Order of policies (2 sheets),

23

Ext. 121 – Particulars of Policy No.441351622.

Ext. 122 – Letter,

Ext. 123 & 124 – Specimen Signature paper,

Ext. 125 – Underwriting Manual,

Ext. 126 – Seizure memo,

Ext. 127, 128, 129 130 – Seizure memo,

Ext. 131 & 132 – Registered Letter,

Ext. 133 – letter,

Ext. 134 – Carbon copy of purported FIR,

Ext. 135 – Certificate,

Ext. 136 – Extract copy of purported GD

Entry,

Ext. 137 & 138 – Letter,

Ext. 139 – Medical Examiner’s Confidential

Report,

Ext. 140 – Medical Examiner’s Report,

Document marked ‘XY’ – Attested copy of Death Certificate,

Ext. 141 – Forwarding letter (5 sheets),

Ext. 142 & 143 – Letters (5 sheets & 4

Sheets),

Ext. 144 – Opinion,

Ext. 145 – Forwarding Letter,

Ext. 146 – Case abstract,

Ext. 147 & 148 – Specimen

(4 sheets & 5 sheets),

Ext. 149 – Reasoning for Opinion (2 sheets),

Ext. 150 – Opinion,

Ext. 151 – FIR,

Ext. 152 – Forwarding Letter,

Ext. 153 – Charge Sheet,

24

Ext. 154 – Forwarding Letter,

Ext. 155 – Copy of Order,

Document marked ‘YY’ – Letter,

Ext. 156, 156/1 to 156/68 – Specimen Signature & Writing Sheets,

Ext. 157 – Manual for Policy Servicing Deptt.

Ext. 158 – Claimant’s Statement.

Ext. 159 – Medical Attendant’s Certificate,

Ext. 160 to 163 – Certificates,

Ext. 164 – Certificate of Hospital Treatment,

Ext. 165 – Purported receipt of Cheque,

Ext. 166 – Purported request,

Ext. 167 – Letter,

Ext. 168 & 169 – Purported Death

intimation,

Ext. 170 – Request letter,

Ext. 171 – Purported claimant statement,

Ext. 172 – Death & Burial Certificate,

Ext. 173 – Purported certificate of employer,

Ext. 174 – Medical Attendance certificate,

Ext. 175 – Certificate,

Document marked ‘YY/1’ & ‘YY/2’ – Purported

First Information and GD Entry,

Document marked ‘YY/3’- Purported certificate,

Document marked ‘YY/4’- Certificate,

Document marked ‘YY/5’- Copy of purported Post Mortem Report,

Ext. 176 to 180 – Cheques.

(P.C. Das) Special Judge, CBI, Assam, Additional CBI Court No.2,

25

CHANDMARI, GUWAHATI-3.