(1.) In the year 1973, Smt. Naima Saeed was posted as a Senior Domestic Teacher in the Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Bulbuli Khana, Asaf Ali Road, Delhi. During the relevant period, Smt. N.D. Chaudhary was the Principal of the school while Ram Singh, the respondent in this Court was working as an Upper Division Clerk (Cashier).
(2.) On 28-5-1974. Smt. Naima Saeed complained to the Director of Education that her salary from April to June, 1973 has not been paid even though the Principal of the school has obtained her signature on the acquaintance rolls in the presence of the teachers and the other staff of the school. On the basis of this complaint, Smt. Savitri Keshav who was working as the Vigilance Officer in the Directorate of Education as asked to enquire about the said complaint and submit her report. After making thorough enquiry, Smt. Savitri submitted her report (Public Witness -2/D), confirming the fact that the salary to the complainant ha not been paid. On the basil of the said report, a formal complaint (Public Witness -1/A) was lodged before the Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Branch by Sh. R.K. Bhatia, Joint Director of Education. The investigation was entrusted to Shri Krishan Gopal, the Assistant Commissioner of Police who moved in the matter took into possession the relevant documents, including the audit report and examined a, number of witnesses. His investigation revealed that the accused who has working as a cashier of the school did not disburse various amounts to Miss Naima Saeed and embezzled the same by forging her signatures in the acquitance rolls showing that the ount has been duly disbursed.
(3.) RamSingb,accused,wasproducedbeforetbe concerned Metropolitan Magistrate for obtaining his specimen writing and signatures for comparison with his disputed writings. The handwriting expert on examination of these documents opined that the writer of the disputed and admitted signatures is the same. On the basis of this documentary evidence, the 1.0. completed the investigation and submitted the challan, against the accused for having committed an offence under Section 409/468/471/420 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(l)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.