Fooder scam Judgement given by Sri G. K. Singh Spl. Judge VII CBI ...

78the different places. Further he proved three Transport Challan (office copy)that has been marked as Ext. 56 to 56/2.P.W. 82 Bholanath Roy Choudhury is retired Typist of Bengal TenBox Company (P) Limited. In para-2 he stated that after perusal of Ext. 53/3and 53/4 that these two Bill No. 1864 dated 11.11.92 and Bill No. 2195dated 6.6.92 were not issued by his company. Further he stated that theLogo BTV which was shown on the Bill No. 1864 (Ext. 53/3) has not beenused by his company. He also identify the earlier Ext. of 15/15 and 15/6typed by him and signed by the Director S.S. Chakrborty.P.W. 84 Naren Tribhuvandas Shah is a partner of M/s B.Tribhuvanda, Mumbai. He proved his letter dated 14.10.97 prepared on hisdictation and signed by him that has been marked as Ext. 15/38. He statedthat S.P., CBI., Patna inquired him vide letter No. 2983/3/41A/96 Pat andinformation was demanded by him that Invoice No. BT 1106 dated 6.1.93and Invoice No. 1208 dated 16.3.93 that whether any Raw-material wassupplied to this company or not. He replied that in that period Invoice wasprepared by his firm by Computer in printed format. Further this witnessafter perusing Ext. 54/86 and 54/87 sated that these two Invoices does notbelong to his firm and he cannot identify the signature of Invoices. Furtherhe stated that the address of his firm is wrong mentioned in the Invoices. Inpara-5 he stated that his firm has not any concern with M/s InterPharmaceuticals (I) Pvt. Limited, Patna except the two Invoices that wasreferred above.P.W. 85 Jitendra Mohan Lal Desai, retired Commercial Manager ofM/s ShivKal Limited, Gujrat proved Ext. 15/39 and further stated thatInvoice No. 711datd 15.12.91; Invoice No. 697/92 dated 18.2.91; InvoiceNo.424/92 dated 21.6.92 and Invoice No. 865/92 dated 11.12.91 theseInvoices are not genuine of his company. These were in printed form but atthe relevant time his company was using Computarised Invoices. On printedformat Sales-Tax number; Phone Number; TELEX Number and Diamondshape was not his company emblem. Further he stated after perusing Ext.53/11 to 53/16 and Ext. 54/5 that these Invoices also not belong to hiscompany. On all these Invoices the spellings of ‘Gujrat’ is not correct andall the Invoices are in hand-written. Further he proved Ext. 15/40 and stated