Delhi District Court
Cbi vs Jagannath D. Parkhi on 28 March, 2026
CC No. 301/2019 CBI VS. Jagannath D. Parkhi
IN THE COURT OF MS. NEETU NAGAR,
ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE -06,
ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURT,
NEW DELHI
COVER-SHEET
IN THE MATTER OF:
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
VS.
JAGANNATH D. PARKHI
The accused person has been apprised about the Legal Aid
Facility and the details of legal aid facility which is as
under:-
DISTRICT LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY
(ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURT)
FRONT OFFICE, GROUND FLOOR,
ROUSE AVENUE COURT COMPLEX, DELHI
PHONE NO. 9810420894
E-MAIL ADDRESS : [email protected]
Digitally
signed by
NEETU
(Neetu Nagar) NEETU NAGAR
ACJM-06 RADC NAGAR Date:
Delhi: 28.03.2026 Page 1 of 49 2026.03.28
17:20:01
+0530
CC No. 301/2019 CBI VS. Jagannath D. Parkhi
IN THE COURT OF MS. NEETU NAGAR,
ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE-06,
ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURT,
NEW DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF:
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
VS.
JAGANNATH D. PARKHI
AGE OF THE CASE : 26 YEARS 5 MONTHS
5 DAYS
CNR No. : DLCT12-000909-2019
CASE No. : CBI/301/2019
FIR No. : RC 02(S)/1998
Under Section : 420/468/471 IPC
Name of Branch :SCB-II/CBI/DLI
Date of Commission of Offence : During the year 1996-98
Name of the Complainant : Inspector J.C. Tiwari
Name, Parentage and address of :Jagannath D. Parkhi
accused S/o Sh. Bhiwaji Ramrao
Parkhi,
R/o Kholi No. 4,
24 Police Wireless
Quarters, Chauhan Nagar,
Pune, Maharasthra.
Offence complained of : 420/468/471 IPC.
Plea of Accused Person : Not Guilty
NEETU
(Neetu Nagar)
ACJM-06 RADC NAGAR
Delhi: 28.03.2026 Page 2 of 49
Digitally signed by
NEETU NAGAR
Date: 2026.03.28
17:20:08 +0530
CC No. 301/2019 CBI VS. Jagannath D. Parkhi
Date of institution of case : 23.10.1999
Date of Judgment : 28.03.2026
Final Decision : CONVICTION
*****
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:-
For the Prosecution : Ms. Rohini, Ld. PP for CBI.
For the Accused : Accused represented/defended
his case himself.
*****
JUDGMENT
*****
1. Accused namely Jagannath D. Parkhi has been sent by the
CBI to face trial for the commission of the offences punishable
under Section 420, 468 and 471 IPC.
FACTS
2. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that a
written complaint was made to the Superintendent of Police,
CBI, SCB-II New Delhi by Inspector J.C.Tiwari, SCB-II on
24.08.1998 to the effect that accused J.D.Parkhi obtained
financial assistance of Rs. 20,000/- from the Prime Minister’s
office by using forged recommendation letters purported to have
been issued by Members of Parliament and also cheated Ministry
of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India on the basis
of such forged letters.
NEETU
NAGAR
Digitally signed by
(Neetu Nagar) NEETU NAGAR
ACJM-06 RADC Date: 2026.03.28
Delhi: 28.03.2026 Page 3 of 49 17:20:13 +0530
CC No. 301/2019 CBI VS. Jagannath D. Parkhi
2.3 It is revealed during investigation that the Ministry of
Health and Family Welfare, Government of India received an
application dated 10.01.97 in prescribed proforma annexing
therein the diagnosis papers of Smt. Saraswati B. Parkhi, mother
of the accused from Vishnu B. Parkhi, brother of accused duly
forwarded by Dr. Ghosh of Pune Medical Foundation, Pune,
requesting financial assistance of Rs.50,000/- from the Health
Minister’s Discretionary Fund for the treatment of Cancer. The
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare subsequently received
letters dated 10.01.97, 30.04.97 and 21.10.97 purported to have
been written by former Members of Parliament namely Sh.
Yashwant Rao Ghadak Patil addressed to the Minister and
Section Officer, letters dated 03.05.97, 26.02.96, 19.10.96
purported to have been issued by Members of Parliament Shri
V.V. Navale, letters dated 18.10.96, 01.05.97 purported to have
been issued by Shri S.S. Kakade, MP and letters dated 25.02.97,
26.04.97 and 22.10.96 by Shri Prakash Ambedkar, MP, all
supporting the cause of Smt. Saraswati Parkhi and requested the
Minister to expedite the matter. Acting on the said request and
above said recommendation letters of Members of Parliament as
genuine, the matter was processed in the Ministry and financial
assistance of Rs.20,000/- was granted by the Ministry in favour
of Smt. Saraswati Parkhi. In this respect, a cheque for the said
amount bearing No. 809322 dated 11.08.98 drawn on Bank of
Baroda, Parliament Street Branch, New Delhi was forwarded to
NEETU
NAGAR
(Neetu Nagar) Digitally signed by
ACJM-06 RADC NEETU NAGAR
Delhi: 28.03.2026 Page 4 of 49 Date: 2026.03.28
17:20:17 +0530
CC No. 301/2019 CBI VS. Jagannath D. Parkhi
the Medical Superintendent, Pune Medical Foundation, Pune
vide forwarding letter dated 17.08.98 of Smt. Prema Bhatt,
Section Officer, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Shastri
Bhawan, New Delhi.
2.4 It has further transpired during the investigation that the
said amount of Rs. 20,000/- was not utilised by the Hospital
authority towards the treatment of Smt. Saraswati Parkhi as she
was not undergoing treatment in the hospital at that point of time
and the cheque forwarded by the Ministry was later on returned
to the Government.
2.5 It also surfaced during investigaton that Sh. Yashwant Rao
Ghadak Sh. Patil, V.V. Navale, Sh. S.S. Kakade and Sh. Prakash
Ambedkar, all former Members of Parliament have categorically
stated that the alleged letters are forged as they never wrote any
such letters to the Union Health Ministry/Health Minister. Thus,
accused Jagannath D. Parkhi cheated the Ministry of Health &
Family Welfare, Govt. of India to the tune of Rs.20,000/- and has
committed the offences punishable under Section 420, 468 and
471 IPC.
2.6 After completion of the investigation, chargesheet was
filed in the court.
COGNIZANCE AND CHARGE
3. Vide order dated 17.01.2000, cognizance of the offence
was taken against the accused. Copy of the chargesheet and the
accompanying documents were supplied to the accused free of
NEETU
NAGAR
(Neetu Nagar) Digitally signed by
ACJM-06 RADC NEETU NAGAR
Delhi: 28.03.2026 Page 5 of 49 Date: 2026.03.28
17:20:21 +0530
CC No. 301/2019 CBI VS. Jagannath D. Parkhi
cost under Section 207 Cr.P.C. Vide order dated 12.01.2012, the
discharge application of the accused was dismissed and finding a
prima facie case, charge for commission of offence punishable
under Section 420/468/471 IPC were framed against accused to
which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
4. To prove its case, the prosecution examined Nine witnesses
in total. The witnesses listed in a tabular form in compliance of
judgment titled as Manojbhia Jethabhai Parmar (Rohit) Vs. State
of Gujarat (Criminal Appeal No. (S) 2973 of 2023 decided on
15.12.2025 are as under:-
SL. PW Name of Particulars of Points proved
No. No. PWs Witness during Trial
1. PW-1 Sh. Member of This witness
Yashwan Parliament proved forgery of
t Rao recommendatory
Ghadak letters
Patil
2. PW-2 Shri S.L. Principal Scientific Expert Witness
Mukhi Officer, CFSL, CGO regarding forgery
Complex, New
Delhi
3. PW-3 Charanjit Under Secretary, Proved the scheme
Singh Ministry of Health of Health Ministry
and Family Welfare, and details related
Government of India thereof. Also
proved the
documents handed
over by him to CBINEETU
NAGAR
(Neetu Nagar) Digitally signed by
NEETU NAGAR
ACJM-06 RADC
Date: 2026.03.28
Delhi: 28.03.2026 Page 6 of 49 17:20:27 +0530
CC No. 301/2019 CBI VS. Jagannath D. Parkhi
4. PW-4 Shri Proprietor-cum- He deposed that the
Sunil Typist, Yashoda forged letters were
Mungle Typing Centre, F.C. typed by him at the
Road, Pune, instructions of
Maharashtra accused.
5. PW-5 Prema Section Officer, Proved letters
Bhatt Ministry of Health bearing her
and Family Welfare, endorsement and
Government of India factum of returning
of cheque
6. PW-6 Sh. Member of He Proved forgery
Prakash Parliament of recommendation
Yashwan letters.
tAmbedk
ar
7. PW-7 Sh. J.C. Retd. DSP, CBI, Rai Complainant
Tiwari Dharchula Road,
Pithoragarh-262501,
Uttrakhand (Mobile
No. 9997204711)
8. PW-8 Sh. Y. Retd. ASP, CBI Investigating
Hari Office of Officer
Kumar Superintendent of
Police, No. 36
Bellary Road,
Ganganagar,
Bengalore-560032
(Tel. No. 080-
23332726)
9. PW-9 Sh. Son of Sh. S.S. Identified the
Prithviraj Kakade signature of his
Kakade father on specimen
and proved forgery
of recommendatory
NEETU
NAGAR
Digitally signed by
(Neetu Nagar) NEETU NAGAR
ACJM-06 RADC Date: 2026.03.28
Delhi: 28.03.2026 Page 7 of 49 17:20:34 +0530
CC No. 301/2019 CBI VS. Jagannath D. Parkhi
letter.
5. The documentary evidence led on behalf of prosecution is
listed as under:-
CC No. 302/2019
LIST OF EXHIBITED DOCUMENTS
S.N PARTICULARS EXHIBIT Nos. WITNESS
O
D1 Photocopy of Complaint Ex.PW-7/A PW-7 J.C.
dated 24.08.1998 Tiwari
(Inspector,
CBI)
D2 FIR dated 28.08.1998 Ex.PW8/A PW-8 Y. Hari
Kumar (IO)
D3 Application performa for Ex.PW3/3 PW-3 Ranjan
financial assistance dated Kumar Ghosh
10.01.1997
D4 Letter dated 04.09.1999 Ex.PW3/1 PW-3 Ranjan
Kumar Ghosh
D5 Forwarding Letter dated Ex.PW3/2 PW-3 Ranjan
10.09.1998 Kumar Ghosh
D6 Letter dated 10.01.1997 Ex. PW1/1 PW1 could not
be cross-
examined
D7 Letter dated 30.04.1997 Ex. PW1/2 PW1 could not
be cross-
examined
D8 Letter dated 10.11.1996 Ex. PW2/3 PW2 S.L.
Mukhi, CFSL
Expert
D9 Letter dated 21.10.1996 Ex. PW1/3 PW1 could not
NEETU
(Neetu Nagar)
NAGAR
Digitally signed by
ACJM-06 RADC NEETU NAGAR
Delhi: 28.03.2026 Page 8 of 49 Date: 2026.03.28
17:20:37 +0530
CC No. 301/2019 CBI VS. Jagannath D. Parkhi
be cross-
examined
D10 Letter dated 03.05.1997 Ex.PW2/7 PW2 S.L.
Mukhi, CFSL
Expert
D11 Letter dated 26.02.1996 Ex.PW2/8 PW2 S.L.
Mukhi, CFSL
Expert
D12 Letter dated 19.10.1996 Ex.PW2/9 PW2 S.L.
Mukhi, CFSL
Expert
D13 Letter dated 18.10.1996 Ex.PW2/11 PW2 S.L.
Mukhi, CFSL
Expert
D14 Letter dated 01.05.1997 Ex.PW2/12 PW2 S.L.
Mukhi, CFSL
Expert
D15 Letters dated 25.02.1997 Ex.PW2/14 PW2 S.L.
Mukhi, CFSL
Expert
D16 Letter dated 26.04.1997 Ex.PW2/16 PW2 S.L.
Mukhi, CFSL
Expert
D17 Letter dated 22.10.1997 Ex.PW2/17 PW2 S.L.
Mukhi, CFSL
Expert
D18 Letter dated 17.08.1998 Ex.PW5/1 PW5 Prema
Bhatt
D19 Receipt Memo dated Ex.PW8/D PW8 Y Hari
10.10.1998 Kumar (IO)
D20 One photocopy of cheque Ex.PW8/E PW8 Y Hari
no. 809392 dated Kumar (IO)
11.08.1998
NEETU
NAGAR
(Neetu Nagar) Digitally signed by
ACJM-06 RADC NEETU NAGAR
Delhi: 28.03.2026 Page 9 of 49 Date: 2026.03.28
17:20:41 +0530
CC No. 301/2019 CBI VS. Jagannath D. Parkhi
D21 Letter dated 31.08.1998 Ex.PW3/4 PW3 Charanjit
of Accountant, Pune Singh
Medical Foundation
D22 Letter dated 12.02.1997 Ex.PW2/24 PW2 S.L.
Ex. PW8/F Mukhi, CFSL
Expert and
PW8 Y. Hari
Kumar (IO)
D23 Photocopies of specimen Ex.PW8/G PW8 Y Hari
writing and signature of Kumar (IO)
accused J.D. Parkhi
D24 Photocopies of specimen Ex.PW7/C PW7 J.C.
signature of Sh. Y.G. Mark PW2/4 Tiwari
Patil (Inspector,
CBI)
D25 Photocopies of specimen Ex.PW8/H PW8 Y Hari
signature of Sh. V.V. Kumar (IO)
Nawale
D26 Photocopies of specimen Ex.PW7/D PW7 J.C.
signature of Sh. S.S. Tiwari
Kakade (Inspector,
CBI)
D27 Photocopies of specimen Ex.PW6/1 Prakash
signature of Sh. Prakash Ex. PW8/7 Yashwant
Ambedkar Ambedkar and
PW8 Y. Hari
Kumar (IO)
D28 Forwarding letter dated Ex.PW8/J PW8 Y Hari
27.10.1998 Kumar (IO)
D29 Forwarding letter Ex.PW8/K PW8 Y Hari
no. .CFSL-98/D637/617 Kumar (IO)
dated 03.02.1999
D30 Report dated 29.01.1999 Mark PW2/5 PW2 S.L.
NEETU
NAGAR
(Neetu Nagar) Digitally signed by
ACJM-06 RADC NEETU NAGAR
Delhi: 28.03.2026 Page 10 of 49 Date: 2026.03.28
17:20:45 +0530
CC No. 301/2019 CBI VS. Jagannath D. Parkhi
Mukhi, CFSL
Expert
D31 Forwarding letter dated Ex.PW8/L PW8 Y Hari
16.02.1999 Kumar (IO)
D32 Forwarding letter dated Ex.PW8/M PW8 Y Hari
18.03.1999 Kumar (IO)
D33 Report dated 17.03.1999 Mark PW2/27 PW2 S.L.
Mukhi, CFSL
Expert
6. The testimonies of the witnesses in brief are as follows: –
PW-1 Yashwant Rao Ghatakh Patil :- He was the Member of
Parliament from Ahmed Nagar Constituency, Maharashtra and
was also Member of Legislative Assembly of Maharashtra from
1997 to 2010. He deposed that document D-6 letter dated
10.01.1997 (Ex.PW1/1) written to the Section Officer, Ministry
of Health & Family Welfare, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi, letters
dated 30.04.1997 (Ex PW1/2) and letter dated 21.10.1996
Ex.PW1/3 written to Salim Sherwani were not sent by him and
signature on the said letters did not belong to him. It is pertinent
to mention that this witness was not cross-examined as his name
was dropped from the list of witnesses due to his illness vide
order dated 13.11.2025.
PW-2 S.L. Mukhi:- He was the Principal Scientific Officer,
CFSL, New Delhi. He examined the documents referred to him
vide forwarding letter D-27 dated 27.10.98 alongwith enclosures
vide Ex. PW2/1. He proved his report vide Ex. PW2/5 (D-29)
NEETU
NAGAR
(Neetu Nagar)
ACJM-06 RADC Digitally signed by
NEETU NAGAR
Delhi: 28.03.2026 Page 11 of 49 Date: 2026.03.28
17:20:49 +0530
CC No. 301/2019 CBI VS. Jagannath D. Parkhi
and opined that the authorship of questioned signatures Mark Q2
Ex. PW 2/2 (D-4), Mark Q4 Ex. PW 1/2 (D-7), Mark Q5 Ex. PW
2/3 (D-8), Q6 Ex. PW 1/3 (D-9) could not be connected to the
writer of specimen signatures Mark S1 & S2 on two sheets
purported to be written by Sh. Yashwant Patil vide Ex. PW 2/4
(D-24). He deposed that the authorship of the questioned
signature Mark Q3 Ex. PW 1/1 (D-6), Q7 Ex. PW 2/6 (D-5), Q-8
Ex. PW 2/7 (D-10), Q9 Ex. PW2/8 (D-11), Q10, Q11 Ex. PW2/9
(D-12) could not be connected to the writer of specimen
signatures Mark S3 and S4 Ex. PW2/9A on two pages purported
to be written by Sh. VV Navale. He further deposed that the
authorship of questioned signatures Mark Q12 Ex. PW2/10, Q-13
Ex. PW 2/11 (D-13) and Q14 Ex. PW 2/12 (D-14) could not be
connected to the writer of specimen signatures Mark S5 and S8
purported to be written by Sh. S.S. Kakade vide Ex. PW 2/13 (D-
26-1). He testified that the authorship of questioned signatures
Mark Q15 Ex. PW2/14 (D-15), Q-16 Ex. PW 2/15, Q-17 Ex.
PW 2/16 (D-16) and Q18 Ex. PW2/17 (D-17) could not be
connected to the writer of specimen signatures Mark S9 to S12
Ex. PW 2/18. He deposed further that documents of the present
case were subsequently forwarded by SP, CBI along with further
specimen writings and signatures vide letter dated 16.02.99 (D-
30) vide Ex. PW2/19. He deposed further that the handwriting
evidence pointed to the writer of specimen writing and signature
Mark S-66 to S-69 (four sheets & collectively Ex. PW 2/20 (D-
NEETU
(Neetu Nagar)
NAGAR
ACJM-06 RADC Digitally signed by
Delhi: 28.03.2026 Page 12 of 49 NEETU NAGAR
Date: 2026.03.28
17:20:54 +0530
CC No. 301/2019 CBI VS. Jagannath D. Parkhi
23), S-79 to S-81 (three sheets) and collectively Ex. PW2/21, S-
93 to 97 (5 sheets & collectively Ex. PW2/22) (all these
specimen writings purportedly to be written by Sh. J.D. Parkhi)
being the person responsible for writing the questioned
signatures and writings Mark Q-24 (Ex. PW2/23) (signature on
the back of the document D-16), Q-30 & Q-30A (Ex. PW2/24)
(D-22), Q-33 & Q-33-A (Ex.PW2/25) (D-7), Q-34 & Q-35 (Ex.
PW2/26) (D-8). He further deposed that he had detailed his
reasons in his supplementary report no. CFSL-98/D-637 dated
17.03 1999 vide Ex. PW 2/27 (D-32).
PW-3 Charanjit Singh:- He was posted as Under Secretary in the
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Delhi in September,
1998. He deposed that there was a scheme in the Health Ministry
namely Health Minister’s Discretionary Grant through which
Ministry could provide financial assistance to the needy patients
who applied for the same in the prescribed format duly
recommended by concerned hospital or institution where the
patient was under treatment and upto Rs. 20,000/- medical
assistance was to be granted to the patient at the relevant time as
per the scheme. He proved letter dated 04.09.1998 Ex. PW3/1
(D-4) vide which he was asked to provide the original letters of
the then Members of Parliament who recommended the present
case for financial aid. He proved letter dated 10.09.1998 Ex. PW
3/2 (D-5) addressed to SP CBI vide which he had provided some
original letters of the then Members of Parliament. He proved
Digitally
signed by
NEETU
NEETU NAGAR
(Neetu Nagar) NAGAR Date:
ACJM-06 RADC 2026.03.28
17:20:58
Delhi: 28.03.2026 Page 13 of 49 +0530
CC No. 301/2019 CBI VS. Jagannath D. Parkhi
letter dated 10.11.1997 Ex.PW2/3 (D-8) addressed to him
bearing his initial and written by the then Member of Parliament
Sh.Yashwant G Patil. He proved the format of application for
financial assistance out of Health Minister’s Discretionary Grant
vide Ex. PW3/3 (D-3) which was received by Health Ministry
from the applicant Smt. Saraswati Bhivaji Parkhi for medical
fund. He deposed that the funds for medical assistance to any
patient were released through cheque to the Medical
Superintendent or Director of the Medical Institutions/Hospitals
from where the patient was taking treatment. He further deposed
that the medical Institutions/Hospitals where the patients were
being treated were asked to furnish the utilization certificate to
the Health Ministry who issued the medical assistance cheque.
He deposed next that the medical fund released to Saraswati
Bhivaji Parkhi was not utilized as the medical institution had
informed the Health Ministry that the patient Smt. Parkhi was not
taking treatment from the concerned medical institution at the
relevant time. He proved letter dated 31.08.1998 Ex. PW3/4 (D-
20) addressed to Smt. Prema Bhatt, Section Officer, Ministry of
Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi vide which Pune Medical
Foundation had returned the cheque No.809392 dated 11.08.1998
for Rs. 20,000/- drawn on Bank of Baroda, Parliament Street,
New Delhi and also informed that Smt.S.Parkhi was not under
treatment.
PW-4 Sunil S. Mungale:- This witness had been working as
NEETU
NAGAR
(Neetu Nagar) Digitally signed by
ACJM-06 RADC NEETU NAGAR
Date: 2026.03.28
Delhi: 28.03.2026 Page 14 of 49 17:21:02 +0530
CC No. 301/2019 CBI VS. Jagannath D. Parkhi
Typist in Pune since 1986. He deposed that he was known to the
accused as he used to come to him for typing work. He identified
the accused in the court. He deposed that documents dated
10.01.1997 Ex. PW1/1 (D6), dated 10.11.1997 (D-8) Ex. PW2/3,
dated 21.10.1996 (D-9) Ex. PW1/3, dated 26.02.1996 (D-11) Ex.
PW2/8, dated 19.10.1996 (D-12) Ex. PW2/9, dated 18.10.1996
(D-13) Ex. PW 2/11 and dated 25.02.1997 (D-15) Ex. PW 2/14,
dated 22.10.1996 (D-17) Ex. PW2/17, all having encircled
portion with red pen on said documents were typed by him on the
blank letterheads produced by accused containing the name and
other particulars of the person whose letterheads they were. He
deposed further that accused had given him the contents in
writing and on his instructions he had done the typing work. The
accused had thereafter taken the typed documents as well as the
written content given by him for the purposes of typing. He
deposed that accused used to bring the blank letterheads of
various MPs/MLAs to him for typing work which was done by
him on his instructions. He further deposed that the documents
shown to him in court were typed by him on typewriter make
Remington. During his cross-examination, he deposed that he
had given the sample typing of the material on the documents in
question to the IO. He deposed further that his typewriting
machine was not seized by the IO and was only checked.
PW5 Prema Bhatt:- : This witness was posted as Section Office
in Ministry of Health and Family Welfare from August, 1995 to
NEETU
NAGAR
Digitally signed by
(Neetu Nagar) NEETU NAGAR
ACJM-06 RADC Date: 2026.03.28
Delhi: 28.03.2026 Page 15 of 49 17:21:06 +0530
CC No. 301/2019 CBI VS. Jagannath D. Parkhi
August, 2007. She proved letter dated 10.01.1997 (D-6) Ex.
PW1/1 and identified her endorsement thereon. She proved letter
dated 26.02.1996 (D-11) vide Ex. PW2/8 which was copy to her
and deposed that the said letter was written by the then Member
of Parliament V.V. Navale. She deposed further that the letter
dated 25.02.1997(D-15) Ex. PW2/14 and letter dated 25.02.1997
(D-16) Ex. PW2/15 were received as copy to her and the said
letters were written by the then Member of Parliament Sh.
Prakash Ambedkar. She further deposed that the letter Ex.
PW2/15 was marked by her to Sh. B.S. Nayak, the then Assistant
in her office bearing her endorsement. She proved letter dated
17.08.1998 (D-18) Ex.PW5/1 which was addressed to Medical
Superintendent, Pune Medical Foundation, Pune through which,
she had forwarded the cheque to hospital for treatment of Smt.
Saraswati D. Parkhi. She proved letter dated 31.08.1998 (D-21)
Ex. PW3/4 which was addressed to her through which, the
cheque has been returned to their Ministry as Smt. Saraswati D.
Parkhi was not under treatment. She proved letter dated
12.02.1997 (D-22) Ex. PW2/24 which was addressed to her and
written by Vishnu D. Parkhi and was also marked by her to Sh.
B.S. Nayak, Dealing Assistant in her office. During her cross-
examination, she deposed that the original cheque which was
sent for medical grant was returned. She admitted that the
original cheque was not on record.
PW6 Prakash Yashwant Ambedkar:- He was member of Rajya
NEETU
NAGAR
(Neetu Nagar) Digitally signed by
ACJM-06 RADC NEETU NAGAR
Delhi: 28.03.2026 Page 16 of 49 Date: 2026.03.28
17:21:10 +0530
CC No. 301/2019 CBI VS. Jagannath D. Parkhi
Sabha from the year 1990 to 1996 and also member of Lok
Sabha from the year 1998 to 2003. He deposed that he did not
know any person in the name of Jagannath D. Parkhi, Smt.
Saraswati Parkhi and Vishnu Parkhi. He deposed that letters Ex.
PW2/14 and Ex. PW2/15, both dated 25.02.1997, letter Ex.
PW2/16 dated 26.04.1997 and letter dated 22.10.1996 Ex.
PW2/17, all on letterheads of Prakash Ambedkar do not belong
to him nor the signatures therein belong to him. He also
identified his specimen handwriting and signatures i.e. S-9 and S-
10 (part of D-23) vide Ex.PW6/1 given by him to CBI during
investigation of the present case. During his cross-examination,
he admitted that he did not make any complaint that the
documents Ex. PW2/14 to Ex. PW2/17 did not belong to him.
PW7 J.C. Tiwari:- This witness was posted as Inspector at CBI,
SCB-II, New Delhi. He is the complainant of the present case.
He proved photocopy of complaint dated 24.08.1998(D-1) vide
Ex. PW7/A (original complaint kept in CBI 302/2019) addressed
to SP, CBI/SCB-II/New Delhi. He obtained specimen writing/
signature of accused Jagannath D. Parkhi vide photocopies of S-
94 to S-97 of D-23 vide Ex. PW7/B (colly), that of Sh. Y.G. Patil
vide photocopies of S-1 and S-2 of D-24 (Mark PW2/4) Ex.
PW7/C, that of Sh. S.S. Karade vide photocopies of S-5 and S-6
of D-26 Ex. PW7/D and that of Sh. Prakash Y. Ambedkar vide
photocopies of S-9 and S-10 of D-27 Ex. PW6/1, all bearing his
signatures.
NEETU
(Neetu Nagar)
NAGAR
ACJM-06 RADC Digitally signed by
NEETU NAGAR
Delhi: 28.03.2026 Page 17 of 49 Date: 2026.03.28
17:21:13 +0530
CC No. 301/2019 CBI VS. Jagannath D. Parkhi
PW8 Y. Hari Kumar:- He is the investigating officer of the
present case and proved the steps of investigation undertaken by
him. He proved photocopy of complaint dated 24.08.1998 of
Inspector J.C. Tiwari, CBI/SCB-II/New Delhi vide Ex.PW7/A
(D-1) and photocopy of FIR RC2S/1998/SCB-II/DLI dated
28.08.1998 Ex.PW8/A (D-2) drawn by the then SP/CBI/SCB-
II/DLI namely Sh. I.S. Saroha and identified his signatures
thereon. He proved Letter No. 931/RC2S/1998/SCB-II/DLI dated
04.09.1998 vide Ex. PW3/1 (D-4) also Ex. PW8/B which was
written by the then SP Sh. I.S. Saroha, CBI/SCB-II/New Delhi
addressed to Sh.Charanjeet Singh, the then Under Secretary,
Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,
New Delhi seeking original documents pertaining to financial
assistance sanctioned by the Ministry favouring Smt. Saraswati
Parkhi. He proved Letter No. 12012/1185/96-Grants dated
10.09.1998 Ex. PW3/2 (D-5) also Ex. PW8/C of Sh. Charanjeet
Singh, Under Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Health
and Family Welfare addressed to Sh. I.S. Saroha, SP/CBI/SCB-
II/New Delhi which was entrusted to him for the purpose of
investigation on 10.09.1998. He proved original receipt memo
dated 11.10.1998 vide Ex. PW8/D (D-19) regarding documents
collected from Pune Medical Foundation. He proved photocopy
of cheque no.809392 dated 11.08.1998 vide Ex.PW8/E (D-20) of
Rs. 20,000/- issued by Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,
Government of India in favour of Poona Medical Foundation,
NEETU
NAGAR
(Neetu Nagar) Digitally signed
ACJM-06 RADC by NEETU
NAGAR
Delhi: 28.03.2026 Page 18 of 49 Date: 2026.03.28
17:21:18 +0530
CC No. 301/2019 CBI VS. Jagannath D. Parkhi
Pune, which was received by him from Sh. S.S. Kadilkar,
Accountant, Pune Medical Foundation through D-19 i.e original
receipt memo dated 11.10.1998 Ex. PW8/D. He proved letter
dated 31.08.1998 Ex. PW3/4 (D-21) of Accountant, Poona
Medical Foundation addressed to Section Officer, Ministry of
Health and Family Welfare regarding the return of cheque no.
809392 which was received by him through D-19 which
disclosed that Poona Medical Foundation returned the cheque for
Rs. 20,000/-sanctioned in favour of Smt. Saraswati Parkhi as she
was not undergoing any treatment at that point of time. He
proved handwritten letter dated 12.02.1997 vide Ex. PW8/F (D-
22) of Vishnu D. Parkhi addressed to Prema Bhatt, Sanction
Officer enquring about the financial assistance sought for mother
of accused. He proved photocopy of specimen handwriting and
signature of accused marked S-66 to S-97 (D-23) vide Ex.
PW8/G, that of Sh. Y.G. Patil marked S-1 and S-2 vide Ex.
PW2/4 and Ex. PW7/C (D-24), that of Sh. V.V. Navale marked
S-3 and S-4 (D-25) Ex. PW2/9A vide Ex. PW8/H, that of Sh.
S.S. Kakade marked S-5 and S-8 (D-26) vide Ex. PW7/D and
that of Sh. Prakash Y. Ambedkar marked S-9 and S-10 (Ex.
PW6/I) vide Ex. PW8/I. He proved photocopy of letter dated
27.10.1998 of SP, CBI, SCB-II, Delhi Ex.PW2/1 (D-28) vide Ex.
PW8/J which was addressed to Director, CFSL and deposed that
the questioned documents along with sample handwriting and
signatures of Members of Parliament as well as the accused were
NEETU
NAGAR
(Neetu Nagar) Digitally signed by
ACJM-06 RADC NEETU NAGAR
Delhi: 28.03.2026 Page 19 of 49 Date: 2026.03.28
17:21:22 +0530
CC No. 301/2019 CBI VS. Jagannath D. Parkhi
forwarded to the CFSL for examination to obtain opinion
regarding forgery on such documents. He proved photocopy of
forwarding letter no. CFSL-98/D-637/617 of Director CFSL,
addressed to SP/CBI/SCB-II/New Delhi (D-29) vide Ex. PW8/K
through which the Director CFSL, forwarded examination report
and opinion rendered by Sh. S.L. Mukhi, Principal Scientific
Officer (Documents), CFSL, New Delhi in respect of the
documents forwarded to the CFSL for examination and opinion
on the forged documents. He proved the CFSL report (D-30)
received by the office of the SP/CBI/SCB-II/New Delhi through
the forwarding letter on 08.02.1999 having receipt number 788
vide Ex. PW8/K. He proved the photocopy of forwarding letter
no. 181 dated 16.02.1999 of SP/CBI/SCB-II/New Delhi Ex.
PW2/19(D-31) vide Ex. PW8/L through which further specimen
signature of additional sample specimen signatures/handwritings
of accused were forwarded to CFSL. He proved the photocopy of
forwarding letter no. CFSL-98/D-637/1266 dated 17.03.1999 of
Director CFSL, addressed to SP/CBI/SCB-II/New Delhi vide Ex.
PW8/M (D-32) through which the Director CFSL sent
examination report and opinion rendered by Sh. S.L. Mukhi,
Principal Scientific Officer (Documents), CFSL, New Delhi in
respect of the additional documents forwarded to the CFSL for
examination and opinion on the forged documents. He further
deposed that the CFSL report (D-32) was received by the office
of the SP/CBI/SCB-II/New Delhi through the said forwarding
NEETU
NAGAR
(Neetu Nagar) Digitally signed by
ACJM-06 RADC NEETU NAGAR
Delhi: 28.03.2026 Page 20 of 49 Date: 2026.03.28
17:21:27 +0530
CC No. 301/2019 CBI VS. Jagannath D. Parkhi
letter on 22.03.1991 having receipt number 1734. He identified
the accused in the court.
PW9 Prithviraj Kakade:- He is the son of Sh. Sambhaji Rao
Kakade who was M.P. from Baramati Constituency, Pune from
the period 1977 to 1980 and again M.P. from 1985 to 1989-90.
He deposed that he can identify the signature of his father Sh.
Sambhaji Rao on the documents. He deposed that letter dated
18.10.1996 vide Ex. PW2/11 (D-13) and letter dated 01.05.1997
vide Ex. PW2/12 (D-14) addressed to Sh. Shervani Saheb from
S.S.Kakade bearing the signatures of S.S.Kakade encircled with
red ink do not belong to his father. He further proved the
photocopy of specimen signature of Sh. S.S. Kakade vide
Ex.PW7/D (D-26).
7. It is pertinent to mention that commission was issued for
the examination of witnesses namely Sh. V.V. Navale and Sh.
Y.G. Patil vide order dated 22.04.2025 but their names were
dropped from the list of witnesses due to their ill health vide
order dated 13.11.2025. Further, witnesses namely Smt.
Saraswati B. Parkhi, Sh. Vishnu B Parkhi, Dr. D. Ghosh, and Sh.
S.S. Kadilkar expired during the course of trial.
8. After conclusion of the list of prosecution witnesses, the
prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated 13.11.2025
after the exhaustion of the list of witnesses.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED UNDER SECTION 313
Cr.P.C
NEETU
NAGAR
(Neetu Nagar)
ACJM-06 RADC Digitally signed by
NEETU NAGAR
Delhi: 28.03.2026 Page 21 of 49 Date: 2026.03.28
17:21:30 +0530
CC No. 301/2019 CBI VS. Jagannath D. Parkhi
9. Statement of accused person under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
was recorded vide order dated 27.01.2026 wherein he denied all
the allegations. Accused person submitted that he is falsely
implicated in the present case and is an innocent person. He also
moved an application under Section 294 Cr.P.C. for
admission/denial of documents. All the documents mentioned
therein were denied by the Learned PP for CBI and the
application was accordingly disposed of vide order dated
27.01.2026.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE
10. Accused has not preferred to lead evidence in his defence
and same was closed vide order dated 27.01.2026.
ARGUMENTS
11. I have heard learned PP for CBI and the accused.
12. Learned PP on behalf of the CBI argued that there is
sufficient oral and documentary evidence on record and the
accused is liable to be convicted.
13. Per contra, the accused has argued that he has been falsely
implicated in the present case as nothing was found against him.
Hence, it is prayed that the accused is liable to be acquitted as the
prosecution is not able to prove its case beyond reasonable
doubts. Written submissions were also filed on behalf of accused
and same are not being reproduced here for the sake of brevity
and shall be dealt in the reasoning part.
Digitally
signed by
NEETU
NEETU NAGAR
(Neetu Nagar) NAGAR Date:
2026.03.28
ACJM-06 RADC 17:21:35
+0530
Delhi: 28.03.2026 Page 22 of 49
CC No. 301/2019 CBI VS. Jagannath D. Parkhi
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
14. I have considered the rival submissions of both the parties
and have gone through the case file carefully.
15. The points of determination in the present case are as
follows:-
(i). Whether the accused forged recommendatory letters viz
letters dated 10.01.1997, 30.04.1997, 21.10.1997 purported to
have been written by Former Members of Parliament namely Sh.
Yashwant Rao Ghadak Patil, letters dated 26.02.1996,
19.10.1996 and 03.05.1997 purportedly to have been issued by
Member of Parliament Sh. V.V. Navale, letters dated 18.10.1996
and 01.05.1997 purported to have been issued by Sh. S.S.
Kakade, MP and letters dated 22.10.1996, 25.02.1997 and
26.04.1997 by Sh. Prakash Ambedkar, MP for expediting the
financial assistance requested by Smt. Saraswati Parkhi ?
(ii). Whether the accused during the year 1996-98 dishonestly
and fraudulently used the above mentioned forged
recommendatory letters as genuine knowing or having reasons to
believe at the time he used it to be forged documents for the
purpose of cheating and thereby cheated the Ministry of Health
and Family Welfare, Government of India to grant financial
assistance to the tune of Rs. 20,000/-?
16. It is very well established that in all the criminal cases, the
prosecution has to establish the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt through unimpeachable evidence.
NEETU
NAGAR
(Neetu Nagar)
ACJM-06 RADC Digitally signed
by NEETU
Delhi: 28.03.2026 Page 23 of 49 NAGAR
Date: 2026.03.28
17:21:41 +0530
CC No. 301/2019 CBI VS. Jagannath D. Parkhi
17. It is the case of the CBI that the recommendation letters
i.e. letters dated 10.01.1997, 30.04.1997, 21.10.1997 purported
to have been written by Former Members of Parliament namely
Sh. Yashwant Rao Ghadak Patil, letters dated 26.02.1996,
19.10.1996 and 03.05.1997 purportedly to have been issued by
Member of Parliament Sh. V.V. Navale, letter dated 18.10.1996
and 01.05.1997 purported to have been issued by Sh. S.S.
Kakade, MP and letters dated 22.10.1996, 25.02.1997 and
26.04.1997 by Sh. Prakash Ambedkar, MP for expediting the
financial assistance requested by Smt. Saraswati Parkhi are
forged.
18. For proving forgery, it was required to be proved that the
abovementioned documents are false.
19. The term “forgery” is defined in Section 463 of IPC and
same reads as follows :-
“463. Whoever makes any false documents with
intent to cause damage or injury to the public or to
any person, or to support any claim or title, or to
cause any person to part with property, or to enter
into express or implied contract, or with intent to
commit fraud or that the fraud may be committed,
commits forgery.”
20. Section 464 of IPC defining “making a false document” is
extracted below:
“464. Making a false document.–A person is said to
make a false document or false electronic record—
First – Who dishonestly or fraudulently (a) makes,
signs, seals or executes a document or part of a
document; (b) makes or transmits any electronic
record or part of any electronic record; (c) affixes anyNEETU
NAGAR
(Neetu Nagar) Digitally signed by
ACJM-06 RADC NEETU NAGAR
Delhi: 28.03.2026 Page 24 of 49 Date: 2026.03.28
17:21:45 +0530
CC No. 301/2019 CBI VS. Jagannath D. Parkhidigital signature on any electronic record; (d) makes
any mark denoting the execution of a document or
the authenticity of the digital signature, with the
intention of causing it to be believed that such
document or a part of document, electronic record or
digital signature was made, signed, sealed, executed,
transmitted or affixed by or by the authority of a
person by whom or by whose authority he knows that
it was not made signed, sealed, executed or affixed;
or
Secondly- Who, without lawful authority, dishonestly or
fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a
document or an electronic record in any material part
thereof, after it has been made, executed or affixed with
digital signature either by himself or by any other
person, whether such person be living or dead at the
time of such alternation; or
Thirdly- Who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any
person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document or an
electronic record or to affix his digital signature on any
electronic record knowing that such person by reason of
unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot, or that by
reason of deception practised upon him, he does not
know the contents of the document or electronic record
or the nature of the alteration. xxxxxx”
21. An analysis of section 464 of IPC shows that it divides
false documents into three categories as under:- (i) The first is
where a person dishonestly or fraudulently makes or executes a
document with the intention of causing it to be believed that such
document was made or executed by some other person, or by the
authority of some other person, by whom or by whose authority
he knows it was not made or executed (ii) The second is where a
person dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise,
alters a document in any material part, without lawful authority,
after it has been made or executed by either himself or any other
NEETU
NAGAR
Digitally signed by
(Neetu Nagar) NEETU NAGAR
ACJM-06 RADC Date: 2026.03.28
17:21:50 +0530
Delhi: 28.03.2026 Page 25 of 49
CC No. 301/2019 CBI VS. Jagannath D. Parkhi
person. (iii) The third is where a person dishonestly or
fraudulently causes any person to sign, execute or alter a
document knowing that such person could not by reason of (a)
unsoundness of mind; or (b) intoxication; or (c) deception
practised upon him, know the contents of the document or the
nature of the alteration.
22. In short, a person is said to have made a `false document’,
if (i) he made or executed a document claiming to be someone
else or authorised by someone else; or (ii) he altered or tampered
a document; or (iii) he obtained a document by practicing
deception, or from a person not in control of his senses
23. The condition thus precedent for forgery is making a false
document (or false electronic record or part thereof) which is the
main ingredient of offence under Section 467, 468 and 471 IPC.
If what is executed is not a false document, there is no forgery.
24. This court is now required to critically examine the evi-
dence in the present case against the accused.
25. In order to prove the forgery in question, the prosecution
has examined five witnesses, i.e. PW1 Yashwant Rao Ghadak
Patil, PW2 S.L. Mukhi, PW4 Sunil S. Mungale, PW6 Prakash
Ambedkar and PW9 Prithviraj Kakade and hence, it is imperative
to discuss their depositions.
26. Witness namely Prakash Ambedker (PW6), the then M.P
proved that the recommendation letters dated 25.02.97 (D15),
dated 26.04.97 (D16) and dated 22.10.96 (D17) did not belong to
NEETU
(Neetu Nagar)
NAGAR
ACJM-06 RADC Digitally signed by
Delhi: 28.03.2026 Page 26 of 49 NEETU NAGAR
Date: 2026.03.28
17:21:54 +0530
CC No. 301/2019 CBI VS. Jagannath D. Parkhi
him. He specificially denied his signatures thereon. Witness
Prithviraj Kakade (PW9) son of S.S Kakade was called as
witness on behalf of his father the then M.P. under Section 311
Cr.P.C. due to demise of Sh. S.S. Kakade. He specifically proved
that recommendation letters i.e. 18.10.96 (D13) Ex. PW2/11, and
dated 01.05.97 (D14) Ex. PW2/12 purported to have been written
for grant of financial assistance by his father Sh. S.S. Kakade
were forged as he denied signature of his father thereon. Meaning
thereby that the said letters are false. Hence, it is duly proved by
the prosecution that the above mentioned recommendation letters
are forged.
27. The testimony of witness Sunil S. Mungale (PW4) is most
significant. This witness was known to the accused and also
correctly identified him in the court. Witness Sunil S. Mungale
(PW4) proved that all the alleged forged letters i.e D-6 letter
dated 10.01.97, D-8 letter dated 10.11.97, D-9 letter dated
21.10.1996, D-11 letter dated 26.02.96, D-12 letter dated
19.10.96, D-13 letter dated 18.10.96, D-15 letter dated 25.02.97
and D-17 letter dated 22.10.96 were typed by him on the
instructions of accused who used to bring to him the blank
letterheads of various MPs/MLAs. Nothing favourable to the
accused could be brought by the lengthy cross-examination of
this witness. No suggestion has been given if this witness was
having enmity against the accused so as to depose against him.
His testimony could not be shaken by the accused. Merely for the
Digitally
signed by
NEETU
(Neetu Nagar) NEETU NAGAR
ACJM-06 RADC NAGAR Date:
2026.03.28
Delhi: 28.03.2026 Page 27 of 49 17:21:58
+0530
CC No. 301/2019 CBI VS. Jagannath D. Parkhireason that the typewriter as well as sample type set of the
typewriters are not produced during the trial does not impact the
otherwise cogent testimony of this witness.
28. Further, the factum of the forgery in question stands duly
corroborated by expert witness S.L Mukhi (PW2), the CFSL
expert vide his expert opinion reports Ex. PW-2/27 and
Ex. PW2/5 wherein he opined that the authorship of the
questioned signatures could not be connected to the writer of the
specimen signature in case of all the M.Ps. Meaning thereby that
the letters in question were not signed by the MPs whose
specimen signatures were obtained during the course of
investigation as deposed by the IO. This witness further opined
that Handwriting evidence points to the writer of the specimen
signatures being the person responsible for writing the
questioned signature and writings in case of accused. Meaning
thereby that the specimen signatures of accused tallied with the
questioned signatures on the forged letters, leading to the
conclusion that the same were infact forged by the present
accused. In other words, the recommendation letters in question
did not bear the signature of MP’s as mentioned therein but that
of the present accused. It was argued by the accused that forgery
in recommendation letters of PW-1 Sh. Y.G. Patil is not proved
as he was not cross-examined. To my mind, there is no merit in
this contention as the forgery stands otherwise also duly proved
by the testimonies of PW4 Sunil Mungle who typed the forgedNEETU
NAGAR
(Neetu Nagar) Digitally signed by
ACJM-06 RADC NEETU NAGAR
Date: 2026.03.28
Delhi: 28.03.2026 Page 28 of 49 17:22:01 +0530
CC No. 301/2019 CBI VS. Jagannath D. Parkhiletters on the instructions of accused and the signatures of
accused thereon stand duly proved by the handwriting expert
PW2 S.L. Mukhi. The non-examination of Sh. Y.G. Patil is not
therefore fatal to the case of prosecution. Hence, the role of the
accused in forgery of the recommendation letters in question is
crystal clear and stands duly proved on behalf of the prosecution.
Thus, the ingredients of forgery under Section 467 IPC stand
duly fulfilled.
29. It was vehemently argued by learned PP on behalf of CBI
that the forgery in question has been committed by the accused
with the sole purpose to cheat Ministry of Health and Family
Welfare, Government of India in order to avail financial
assistance to the tune of Rs. 20,000/-. Same is denied by the
accused.
30. Let us first discuss the relevant legal provisions applicable.
SECTION 420 IPC
31. Section 420 IPC deals with cheating and dishonestly
inducing delivery of property. It is reproduced as under :-
“420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of
property.–Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly
induces the person deceived to deliver any property
to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole
or any part of a valuable security, or anything which
is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being
converted into a valuable security, shall be punished
with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to seven years, and shall also be
liable to fine.”
32. The ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 420
NEETU
NAGAR
(Neetu Nagar) Digitally signed by
ACJM-06 RADC NEETU NAGAR
Delhi: 28.03.2026 Page 29 of 49 Date: 2026.03.28
17:22:06 +0530
CC No. 301/2019 CBI VS. Jagannath D. Parkhi
are as follows:-
(i) a person must commit the offence of cheating under Section
415; and
(ii) the person cheated must be dishonestly induced to (a) deliver
property to any person; or (b) make, alter or destroy valuable
security or anything signed or seal and capable of being
converted into valuable security.
33. Cheating is an essential ingredient for an act to constitute
an offence under Section 420 and is defined under Section 415 of
the Indian Penal Code. Section 415 of Indian Penal Code reads as
under:-
“Section 415. Cheating – Whoever, by deceiving
any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the
person so deceived to deliver any property to any
person, or to consent that any person shall retain any
property or intentionally induces the persons so
deceived to do or omit to do anything which he
would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and
which act or omission causes or is likely to cause
damage or harm to that person in body, mind,
reputation, property, is said to “cheat”.
34. A fraudulent or dishonest inducement is an essential
ingredient for the offence punishable under section 420 IPC. To
constitute the offence of cheating, it is not necessary that the
deception should be by express words, but it may be by conduct
or implied in the nature of transactions itself.
35. Section 24 of the Indian Penal Code defines “dishonestly”
as whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful
NEETU
NAGAR
(Neetu Nagar)
Digitally signed
ACJM-06 RADC by NEETU
Delhi: 28.03.2026 Page 30 of 49 NAGAR
Date: 2026.03.28
17:22:10 +0530
CC No. 301/2019 CBI VS. Jagannath D. Parkhi
gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person, is said to
do that thing dishonestly. Further, “Fraudulently” is defined in
section 25 IPC. A person is said to do a thing fraudulently if he
does that thing with intent to defraud but not otherwise. The
word “defraud” includes an element of deceit. Deceit is not an
ingredient of the definition of the word “dishonestly” while it is
an important ingredient of the definition of the word
“fraudulently”. The former involves a pecuniary or economic
gain or loss while the latter by construction excludes that
element. Further, the juxtaposition of the two expressions
“dishonestly” and “fraudulently” used in the various sections of
the Code indicates their close affinity and therefore the definition
of one may give colour to the other.
36. In Arun Bhandari vs State of UP, 2013 (2) SCC 801 , it
was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that :-
“19 Before we proceed to scan and analyse the
material brought on record in the case at hand, it is
seemly to refer to certain authorities wherein the
ingredients of cheating have been highlighted. In
State of Kerala v. A. Pareed Pillai and Another [8], a
two-Judge Bench ruled that to hold a person guilty
of the offence of cheating, it has to be shown that his
intention was dishonest at the time of making the
promise and such a dishonest intention cannot be
inferred from a mere fact that he could not
subsequently fulfil the promise.
20 In G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad and Others [9], this
Court has held thus: “7. As mentioned above,
Section 415 has two parts. While in the first part, the
person must “dishonestly” or “fraudulently” induce
the complainant to deliver any property; in theNEETU
NAGAR
(Neetu Nagar)
ACJM-06 RADC Digitally signed by
Delhi: 28.03.2026 Page 31 of 49 NEETU NAGAR
Date: 2026.03.28
17:22:15 +0530
CC No. 301/2019 CBI VS. Jagannath D. Parkhisecond part, the person should intentionally induce
the complainant to do or omit to do a thing. That is
to say, in the first part, inducement must be
dishonest or fraudulent. In the second part, the
inducement should be intentional. As observed by
this Court in Jaswantrai Manilal Akhaney v. State of
Bombay[10] a guilty intention is an essential
ingredient of the offence of cheating. In order,
therefore, to secure conviction of a person for the
offence of cheating, “mens rea” on the part of that
person, must be established. It was also observed in
Mahadeo Prasad v. State of W.B.[11] that in order to
constitute the offence of cheating, the intention to
deceive should be in existence at the time when the
inducement was offered.
21. In S.N. Palanitkar and Others v. State of Bihar
and Another[12], it has been laid down that in order
to constitute an offence of cheating, the intention to
deceive should be in existence at the time when the
inducement was made. It is necessary to show that a
person had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the
time of making the promise, to say that he
committed an act of cheating. A mere failure to keep
up promise subsequently cannot be presumed as an
act leading to cheating”. (Emphasis Supplied)
37. Further, Section 468 IPC reads as under:-
“Forgery for purpose of cheating.–Whoever
commits forgery, intending that the 1 [document or
electronic record forged] shall be used for the
purpose of cheating, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to
fine.”
38. Harking back, reliance was placed by the prosecution on
the testimony of witness Charanjit Singh (PW3) in order to
substantiate the allegations of cheating. Witness Charanjit Singh
(PW3) proved that there was a scheme in Health Ministry namely
NEETU
NAGAR
Digitally signed by
(Neetu Nagar) NEETU NAGAR
ACJM-06 RADC Date: 2026.03.28
Delhi: 28.03.2026 Page 32 of 49 17:22:19 +0530
CC No. 301/2019 CBI VS. Jagannath D. Parkhi
Health Minister’s Discretionary Grant at the relevant time by
which needy patients used to get financial assistance. He
forwarded the original letters (forged) of various MPs to SP/CBI.
He also proved (D-3) the application in prescribed proforma of
Vishnu Parkhi for financial assistance which was received in the
Health Ministry and (D-21) letter dated 31.08.98 of the
Accountant, Pune Medical Foundation addressed to Prema Bhatt,
Section Officer, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare vide
which Pune Medical Foundation had returned the cheque
809392(D-20) dated 11.08.98 for Rs. 20,000/-. Same is also
confirmed by witness Prema Bhatt (PW5). She also proved (D18)
letter dated 17.08.98 addressed to Pune Medical Foundation
forwarding cheque No.809392 dated 11.08.98 for the treatment
of Saraswati B.Parkhi, mother of accused. Had the
recommendation letters would not been forged, then there was no
question of issuing the cheque in question. Meaning thereby that
the cheque in question to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- was issued
based on the representation of the forged recommendation letters.
39. PW-7 Witness J.C Tiwari/Inspector from CBI proved the
photocopy of original complaint dated 24.08.1998 (D-1) vide Ex.
PW7/A as well as photocopies of specimen writing of accused
and the MPs. It is pertinent to mention that the original complaint
and the specimen signatures of the accused as well as MPs were
kept in file bearing no. RC 302/2019.
40. Further, witness Y.Hari Kumar(PW7)/Investigating Officer
Digitally
signed by
NEETU
NEETU NAGAR
NAGAR Date:
(Neetu Nagar) 2026.03.28
ACJM-06 RADC 17:22:24
+0530
Delhi: 28.03.2026 Page 33 of 49
CC No. 301/2019 CBI VS. Jagannath D. Parkhi
corroborated the facts pertaining to using of forged
recommendation letters as genuine for availing the financial
benefit from Ministry of Health and Welfare, Government of
India and also cheating for personal gain by accused. He deposed
that present case was registered as per written complaint dated
24.04.1998 of Sh. J.C. Tiwari, Inspector of Police who was
investigating case RC 3S/1997 against present accused. During
the course of the investigation, the relied upon documents which
were already seized in RC3S/1997 by Sh. J.C. Tiwari, IO were
taken over by him for the purpose of investigation of the present
case. He deposed that accused had attempted to cheat Ministry of
Health and Family Welfare, Government of India towards
availing financial assistance of Rs.20,000/-towards treatment of
his mother Smt. Saraswati Parkhi on strength of forged
recommendation letters of former Members of Parliament. He
recorded statements of Member of Parliament who after perusing
their respective forged letters, denied to have ever written such
letters to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,
Government of India enabling Smt. Saraswati Parkhi, mother of
accused for availing medical treatment for cancer in Pune
Medical Foundation. He recorded statement of Job Typist namely
Sh. Sunil Kumar Mugle, Proprietor-cum-Typist of Yashoda
Typing Center, Shivaji Nagar, Pune. He deposed that two
Remington Typewriters were used and letters were typed using
the same and as such the sample type set of these typewriters
NEETU
NAGAR
(Neetu Nagar) Digitally signed by
ACJM-06 RADC NEETU NAGAR
Delhi: 28.03.2026 Page 34 of 49 Date: 2026.03.28
17:22:29 +0530
CC No. 301/2019 CBI VS. Jagannath D. Parkhi
were obtained during the investigation for the purpose of forensic
examination. He collected original forged letters of Members of
Parliament used by accused for availing financial assistance from
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India
from the Under Secretary of the Department namely Charanjeet
Singh and also examined Sh. S.S. Kadilkar of Accountant, Pune
Medical Foundation Hospital. He deposed that the accused
prepared all the forged letters and was also managing the affairs
on behalf of his mother Smt. Saraswati Parkhi and his younger
brother Sh. Vishnu Parkhi. He also questioned accused and
examined his mother and brother. He collected the specimen
signatures of all the above mentioned Members of Parliament
and CFSL opinion was received that their signatures were not
appended in the alleged letters. He had collected specimen
handwriting and signatures of accused during the course of
investigation and same were also forwarded to CFSL for
examination and opinion. He submitted two chargesheets for
commission of offences punishable under Section 420/468/471
IPC. Nothing favourable to the accused was obtained despite
lengthy cross-examination of this witness.
41. It is also pertinent to mention that the accused has neither
engaged a private counsel nor went to Secretary, DLSA, despite
order dated 22.04.2025. Manytimes he was apprised about legal
aid facility but he repeatedly declined to avail legal aid facility.
Same is also clear from the ordersheet dated 10.07.2025. He
NEETU
NAGAR
(Neetu Nagar)
ACJM-06 RADC Digitally signed by
NEETU NAGAR
Delhi: 28.03.2026 Page 35 of 49
Date: 2026.03.28
17:22:33 +0530
CC No. 301/2019 CBI VS. Jagannath D. Parkhi
represented his case himself.
42. It was vehemently argued by the accused that no member
of Parliament (MP) or P.M.O ,Government of India or Ministry
of Health and Family Welfare, Govt. of India filed complaint to
C.B.I. in respect of forgery of their letters or got registered F.I.R.
under section 154 Cr.P.C. against the accused person at any
Police Station in this regard.It was further argued that no
members of Parliament (M.P.) authorised in writing J.C. Tiwari
(so called complainant) C.B.I. Inspector to act on behalf of them
and file complaint regarding forgery of their letters sent to
Government. It was further contended that the Head of the
Department of P.M.O. and Health Ministry Govt. of India did not
grant written consent/permission to C.B.I. Delhi to disclose their
official privileged record for any purpose in court of law against
the accused and same could not have been shared due to express
statutory bar imposed under section 123 and 124 of Indian
Evidence Act.All these contentions raised on behalf of accused
are meritless as the criminal law can be set into motion by any
person and the complainant need not be the victims in all the
cases. In fact, the crime in question surfaced during investigation
of case bearing number RC3S/1997 which was being
investigated by J.C. Tiwari. No such objection has been raised by
the Ministry of Health and Welfare, Government of India that the
documents pertain to official privileged record, hence, the
contentions on behalf the accused that the same are privileged
Digitally
signed by
NEETU
NEETU NAGAR
(Neetu Nagar)
NAGAR Date:
2026.03.28
ACJM-06 RADC 17:22:40
+0530
Delhi: 28.03.2026 Page 36 of 49
CC No. 301/2019 CBI VS. Jagannath D. Parkhidocuments holds no merit.
43. It was next argued by the accused that the C.B.I.
prosecution did not examine any M.P. whose letters were alleged
to have been forged by the accused and their statements recorded
under section 161 Cr.P.C during investigation is not regarded as
evidence. Clearly, the MP namely Sh. Yashwant Rao Ghadak
Patil could not be cross-examined. It is noteworthy that PW
Shambhajirao Kakade passed away on 10.05.2021 and therefore,
his son Prithviraj Kakade was examined under Section 311
Cr.P.C. as PW8 in his place vide order dated 10.07.2025. It is
noteworthy that LW Sh. V.V. Nawale and Sh. Y.G. Patil were
dropped from the list of witnesses vide order dated 13.11.2025
because of their ill health. PW6 Prakash Yashwant Ambedkar
clearly proved the forgery of recommendation letters under his
name. The contentions of the accused holds no merit in view of
the cogent testimonies of PW4 Sunil Mungle, PW6 Prakash
Yashwant Ambedkar, PW9 Prithviraj Kakade coupled with
expert witness PW2 S.L. Mukhi who duly proved the forgery in
question.
44. It was next argued by the accused that C.B.I. examined only
interested witnesses and their evidence is not credit worthy and
can not be relied upon against the accused in the absence of a
complaint under section 200 Cr. P.C to the Magistrate and also
F.I.R. at Police Station as well sanction of the Government
necessary under section 123 of Evidence Act. The accused
NEETU
NAGAR
(Neetu Nagar) Digitally signed by
ACJM-06 RADC NEETU NAGAR
Delhi: 28.03.2026 Page 37 of 49 Date: 2026.03.28
17:22:48 +0530
CC No. 301/2019 CBI VS. Jagannath D. Parkhi
argued that the complainant admitted that R.C. 2(S)/98 is not
registered in any local Police station as valid F.I.R under Section
154 Cr.P.C., no member of Parliament filed written complaint of
forgery and cheating of their letter and that accused did not cheat
him personally for lodging complaint of cheating directly to
C.B.I. as mentioned in R.C.2(5)/198 Dated 28.8.1998. These
contentions also do not hold any water as the present case is not
on the basis of complaint under section 200 Cr.P.C. and no
sanction under section 123 of Evidence Act is required to file the
same.
45. It was next contended that PWs Y. Hari Kumar I.O, C.B.I
and J.C. Tiwari, C.B.I. Inspector both in their evidence admitted
that name of Sh. Vishnu B. Parkhi appeared in letters of M.P.s
who was son of Smt. Saraswati B. Parkhi and his name was not
mentioned in any alleged forged letters. This contention also fails
as the active role of the accused regarding forgery has become
manifest from the testimonies and the documents proved on
record.
46. The next contention on behalf of accused is that PW Y.
Hari Kumar I.O. C.B.l failed to conduct identification parade
before his arrest. This contention is also meritless as it is not
necessary that the Test Identification Parade (TIP) has to be done
in all the cases. TIP may be necessary if the accused person and
the witnesses are strangers. Herein, PW4 Sunil Mungale was
known to the accused person and this witness duly identified the
NEETU
NAGAR
(Neetu Nagar)
Digitally signed by
ACJM-06 RADC
NEETU NAGAR
Delhi: 28.03.2026 Page 38 of 49
Date: 2026.03.28
17:22:53 +0530
CC No. 301/2019 CBI VS. Jagannath D. Parkhi
accused in the court also. It is not the defence of the accused that
PW4 was not known to him or that he has identified him wrongly
due to personal grudges or enmity. The accused was specifically
named in the complaint. The identification of the accused by the
witnesses of prosecution was therefore not necessary and was
also not disputed. Further, the M.Ps PW1 Yashwant Rao Ghadak
Patil and PW6 Prakash Yashwant Ambedkar did not know about
the accused, hence, there was no question of identification of the
accused from them. Hence, the contentions in this regard are
meritless.
47. It was next highlighted by the accused that he was illegally
arrested on 03.08.98 Delhi by the I.O., C.B.I before R.C. No.
2(S)/98 dated 28.8.1995 registered by SP/SCB II/C.B.I in his
office but the Investigating officer Hari Kumar did not produce
vital and crucial arrest and bail documents in this court with two
charge sheets.It was pointed out that Y. Hari Kumar, I.O., C.B.I
P.W-8 deposed evidence stating original documents pertaining to
arrest and medical check-up were submitted in the Ld.C.M.M
court, Delhi but all important documents were not available on
the court record of Judicial file. It was argued that Y. Hari
Kumar, I.O, CBI deposed evidence on oath that he investigated
simple letter dated 24.8.98 of J.C. Tiwari Inspector /CBI/SCB-
II/Delhi disclosing certain cognizable offences of forgery and
cheating under I.P.C. on executive instructions of the Branch
S.P./C.B.I./Delhi which clearly shows that the present case is
NEETU
NAGAR
(Neetu Nagar)
ACJM-06 RADC Digitally signed by
NEETU NAGAR
Delhi: 28.03.2026 Page 39 of 49 Date: 2026.03.28
17:22:57 +0530
CC No. 301/2019 CBI VS. Jagannath D. Parkhi
neither registered nor handed over to Y. Hari Kumar I.O., C.B.I.
and therefore, his action of arrest, P.C. and J.C. and filing
chargesheet on the basis of simple letter dated 24.8.98 of J.C.
Tiwari Inspector CBl is complete illegal and without authority of
law. He argued that he specifically questioned the I.O. Y. Hari
Kumar “Q: In which Police station valid F.I.R. u/s 154 Cr. P.C.
was registered in respect of cognizable offences of forgery and
cheating in which you completed investigation in R.C. 2(s)/98
also filed two charge sheets for court cognizance and
consequential trial as warrant case trial to which he had answered
that “The F.I.R. was registered in CBI/SCBII/Branch/Delhi”.
With regard to his question, “Q- Did you produce such valid
F.I.R. duly registered at the Police Station with the charge sheet
as record of the case by which Criminal law set into motion.” He
answered that the original F.I.R was already submitted and
charge sheet submitted subsequently. He highlighted that this
witness admitted the fact that R.C.2(s)/98 dated 28.08.98 was not
pertaining to offences under P.C. Act or Special Act which
warrants investigation by I.O., C.B.I. He pointed out the question
“Whether the R.C.2(s)/98 for offences of forgery and cheating
exclusive under I.P.C. duly register u/s 154 Cr.P.C. at the local
Police Station to exercise Police Powers under the Cr.P.C. to
investigate offences under I.P.C.” to which this witness answered
that “such I.P.C. offences are investigated by CBI also”. The
accused pointed out that PW-8 admitted that he did not
NEETU
(Neetu Nagar)
NAGAR
ACJM-06 RADC Digitally signed by
NEETU NAGAR
Delhi: 28.03.2026 Page 40 of 49 Date: 2026.03.28
17:23:01 +0530
CC No. 301/2019 CBI VS. Jagannath D. Parkhi
personally register F.I.R. under Section 154 Cr.P.C. against the
accused Jagannath D. Parkhi at the local Police Station for
cognizable offences, I.P.C. before commencing investigation in
R.C.2(s)/98 and F.I.R. was registered by S.P. The accused again
pointed out the question raised by him that “Whether the
R.C.2(s)/98 registered on 28.8.98 in C.B.I. Delhi based on a
complaint under P.C. Act or F.I.R. u/s 154 Cr.P.C. registered at
the Police station. Answer: F.I.R. was registered in C.B.I. and
not in Police Station”. He then submitted that this witness further
admitted that “he arrested accused Jagannath D. Parkhi on
03.8.1998 at Delhi in connection with investigation in R.C.
2(S)/98 and taken to Ram Manohar Lohiya, Hospital/Delhi for
Medical check-up on 03.8.98 also secured Police custody for 5
days by the court order.” It was thus argued that the trial is
vitiated in the absence of FIR in local police station and
complaint before Magistrate under Section 200 Cr.P.C. There is
no merit in these contentions as the present case bearing no. RC
2(S)1998 has been registered by CBI and the same is not required
to be registered at any Police station ,Delhi as the CBI has ample
power to investigate the offence in question in view of Section 3
of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 vide which the
Central Government by way of notification in the official Gazette
has specified the offences which can be investigated by Delhi
Special Police Establishment. It seems that the accused is under
misconception that FIR has to be registered first at a local police
NEETU
NAGAR
Digitally signed by
NEETU NAGAR
(Neetu Nagar)
Date: 2026.03.28
ACJM-06 RADC 17:23:05 +0530
Delhi: 28.03.2026 Page 41 of 49
CC No. 301/2019 CBI VS. Jagannath D. Parkhi
station before the investigation is entrusted to CBI. The IO was
very much competent to conduct the investigation on the basis of
complaint moved by the complainant and duly entrusted to him
by the S.P. concerned even though same was not registered in
any police station. Moreover, the arrest of the accused is not
disputed even though the arrest memo is not proved during trial.
48. It was contended by the accused that Supt. of
Police/C.B.I./SCB-II/Delhi entrusted prosecution of the present
case to Sh. L.D. Tiwari, in-house legal officer (Salaried
employee of legal division-C.B.I.) and he conducted prosecution
against Jagannath D. Parkhi in the courts, acting as Public
Prosecutor for the State through C.B.I. and secured various court
orders without authority of law. It was vehemently contended
that appointment of Public Prosecutor (prosecutor-In-charge) was
not made by the Government of India. It was further argued that
CBI officers namely J.C. Tiwari (complainant), Y.Hari Kumar,
(Investigating Officer), L.D.Tiwari and Amit Kumar, both from
legal division of CBI acted as public prosecutor without
knowledge of the Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of
India and their appointment was not made in the said Ministry. It
was thus argued that the entire trial conducted by C.B.I officers
stands vitiated by fraud under Section 461 Cr. P.C. To my mind,
all these contentions are mere allegations without any supporting
evidence and liable to be rejected.
49. It was next contended that the accused relied upon 20
NEETU
NAGAR
(Neetu Nagar) Digitally signed by
ACJM-06 RADC NEETU NAGAR
Delhi: 28.03.2026 Page 42 of 49 Date: 2026.03.28
17:23:10 +0530
CC No. 301/2019 CBI VS. Jagannath D. Parkhi
decisions of Hon’ble Supreme court and High court seeking
discharge but Ms. Kiran Bansal, learned A.C.M.M merely
mentioned all the case authority on page no. 5 and 6 of the order
dated 12.01.2012 while dismissing discharge application without
considering facts, documents, Govt. Sanction as well governing
law and instantly framed charges on 12.01.2012 without going
into necessary material. The said contentions are also meritless as
the accused failed to challenge the order dated 12.01.2012 before
any higher forum.
50. It was next contended that C.B.I prosecution did not
examine Branch S.P. to check his signature/powers and
Jurisdiction to register present case of forgery and cheating of
letters of M.P.’s without their complaint to C.B.I. It was alleged
that the branch S.P. misused statutory police powers to implicate
innocent accused in complete bogus/fake/false case. These
contentions are also meritless as the signature of Branch S.P. has
been duly identified by the Investigating officer. Hence, there
was no requirement to prove the same by examining him in
person in view of Section 47 and 67 of Indian Evidence Act.
Same reads as under:-
” Section 47. Opinion as to handwriting, when relevant.When
the Court has to form an opinion as to the person by whom any
document was written or signed, the opinion of any person
acquainted with the handwriting of the person by whom it is
supposed to be written or signed that it was or was not written
or signed by that person, is a relevant fact.Explanation. – A
person is said to be acquainted with the handwriting of another
person when he has seen that person write, or when he hadNEETU
NAGAR
(Neetu Nagar) Digitally signed by
ACJM-06 RADC NEETU NAGAR
Delhi: 28.03.2026 Page 43 of 49 Date: 2026.03.28
17:23:14 +0530
CC No. 301/2019 CBI VS. Jagannath D. Parkhireceived documents purporting to be written by that person in
answer to documents written by himself or under his authority
and addressed to that person, or when, in the ordinary course of
business, documents purporting to be written by that person
have been habitually submitted to him.
xxxx
Section 67. Proof of signature and handwriting of person
alleged to have signed or written document produced. — If a
document is alleged to be signed or to have been written wholly
or in part by any person, the signature or the handwriting of so
much of the document as is alleged to be in that person’s
handwriting must be proved to be in his handwriting.”
51. From a conjoint reading of the above mentioned two
sections, it is clear that evidence of a person who is acquainted
with the handwriting or signature of a person is relevant.
52. The next contention on behalf of the accused is that Sh.
I.S. Saroha, SP/SCB-II/CBI/DELHI registered present case on
28.8.1998 (D-2) four days later using prohibited single page
FORM prescribed for FIR under binding/mandatory RULE 9.7of
Crime manual C.B.I against Accused Jagannath D. Parkhi, on the
basis of letter dated 24.8.98 which is produced as F.I.R/R.C.
2(S)/98 and used for all purpose of investigation and prosecution
by the same branch (Crime Branch) and thus he exceeded and
misused statutory powers as he first registered R.C. 2(S)/98 on
28.08.98 against the accused person without original letters of
M.P.’s in hand and 7 day thereafter vide his letter dated 04.09.98
called original letters of M.P.’s from the
privileged/secret/classified/undisclosed record of Heath Ministry,
Govt. of India Delhi for trial purpose. It was further argued that
Digitally
signed by
NEETU
NEETU NAGAR
(Neetu Nagar) NAGAR Date:
2026.03.28
ACJM-06 RADC 17:23:18
Delhi: 28.03.2026 Page 44 of 49 +0530
CC No. 301/2019 CBI VS. Jagannath D. Parkhithe accused was arrested on 03.08.1998 and the present case was
registered 25 days after arrest and thus the conduct of the branch
Superintendent of Police is clearly exceeding his powers and
jurisdiction and violating the essential guidelines for CBI as per
CBI manual. To my mind, all these contentions are nothing but
unfounded allegations. It is not the defence of the accused that
the original letters were not brought on record. Hence, these
contentions fail miserably.
53. It was next argued by the accused that there is judicial
obligation upon the trial court to consider inordinate long delay
of 27 years and discharge the innocent accused person under
Section 245 Cr.P.C. It was vehemently argued that the learned
trial court wrongly converted invalid charge sheet into complaint
case, framed charge and proceeded with the trial. It was further
contended that the facts, evidence and circumstances of the C.B.I
prosecution also attracts inherent residuary powers of the
Magistrate conferred by the Constitution under Article 258 read
with statutory powers under section 245, clause (2) Cr. P.C. to be
exercised in ultra vires case. He has relied on rulings of Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the matter of Ram Jawaya A.I.R 1955 S.C-549
and Jayanti Lal, A.I.R 1964 S.C.-648, wherein he stated, it was
observed “Functions which do not fall strictly within the filed of
legislative or Judicial, falls under in residuary class and must be
regarded as executive. It can not, however assumed that the
legislative function are exclusively performed by the legislative,Digitally
signed by
NEETU
NEETU NAGAR
NAGAR Date:
2026.03.28
(Neetu Nagar) 17:23:22
ACJM-06 RADC +0530Delhi: 28.03.2026 Page 45 of 49
CC No. 301/2019 CBI VS. Jagannath D. Parkhiexecutive functions by the executive and Judicial functions by
the Judiciary alone. The constitution has not made an absolute or
rigid division of functions between the three agencies of the state
ordinary executive power connotes the residue of government
function that remain of legislative and Judicial functions are
taken away.” He further relied upon case titled as Jasbir Singh
Vs. Vipin AIR 2001 SC 2734. To my mind, vague contentions
have been made by the accused and the same are devoid of any
merit. The case laws are also not applicable being distinguishable
from the facts and circumstances of the present case.
54. It was further contended that the accused person is legally
entitled to claim immunity from the court action on the face of
evidence produced with the charge sheet and nil case record of
the government and evidence deposed before the court. He relied
on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of
Vineet Narain v/s Union of India, A.I.R 1998 S.C-889 (para-38),
five Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of
Lalita Kumari v/s Govt. Of U.P. A.I.R 2014 S.C-187 (para-59)
and Directorate of Enforcement (E.D) v/s Deepak Mahajan,
A.I.R 1994 S.C-1775 (S.C) to contend that the Power and
Jurisdiction of the State Police in respect of an offence within it’s
Jurisdiction remains intact and the C.B.I alone inhibited (means
prohibited) thereby. It was argued by the accused that the C.B.I
totally abused police powers as provided under Section 4 Cr. P.C.
read with section 26 Cr.P.C. It was vehemently argued that thisNEETU
NAGAR
(Neetu Nagar) Digitally signed
ACJM-06 RADC by NEETU
NAGAR
Delhi: 28.03.2026 Page 46 of 49 Date: 2026.03.28
17:23:27 +0530
CC No. 301/2019 CBI VS. Jagannath D. Parkhihon’ble court (trial court) presently dealing with the criminal case
exclusively under I.P.C and not under “Special Law”. He placed
reliance on case titled as A.R. Antule v/s Ramdas Shriniwas
Nayak, A.I.R 1984 S.C.-718. At the cost of repetition, the
accused is making wild allegations without any basis, hence,
these contentions also stand rejected being meritless. Also, the
case laws cited are not applicable herein.
55. It was argued further that the officers of Special Crime
Branch, C.B.I. Delhi namely I.S. Saroha, Supt. of Police, Y. Hari
Kumar and J.C. Tiwari, Inspectors, entered into Criminal
Conspiracy with the Director, C.B.I., (Head of Central Agency)
and Government of India (Protector of guarantee under part III of
constitution) and victimized innocent accused by implicating him
in complete false case for 27 years without knowledge of the
Government. It was alleged that C.B.I. also completely violated
D.S.P.E. Act, Cr.P.C. and Crime Manual – C.Ð’.І. in respect of
mandatory rules framed thereunder as well Police powers in
respect to arrest, investigation, filing charge sheet and conducting
trial with the help of inhouse law officer of legal division C.B.I.
with clear motive to kill the innocent accused under the guise of
criminal prosecution/criminal trial (Mock trial) without a
complaint/reference from the Government and F.I.R. under
Section 154 Cr.P.C. registered at the local police and necessary
prosecution sanction from the government. All these contentions
are nothing but allegations without any basis and stand rejected.
Digitally
signed by
NEETU
NEETU NAGAR
(Neetu Nagar)
ACJM-06 RADC
NAGAR Date:
2026.03.28
Delhi: 28.03.2026 Page 47 of 49 17:23:31
+0530
CC No. 301/2019 CBI VS. Jagannath D. Parkhi
56. It was further argued that Sh. Sourabh Singh and Sh.
Dharshan Lal, Sr. P.P. for State through C.B.I. suddenly
withdrew from the prosecution as contemplated under section
321 Cr.P.C. It was submitted that this Hon’ble Court ought to
have stopped the proceeding after recording evidence of principal
witnesses J.C. Tiwari and Y.Hari Kumar under section 258
Cr.P.C. in the absence of complaint under section 200 Cr.P.C.
and F.I.R. registered at the police station and discharge the
accused. Again, baseless allegations have been made by the
accused and same are discarded.
57. Hence, from a cumulative reading of the proved documents
accompanied with the consistent and cogent oral testimonies of
the witnesses, it is duly proved by the prosecution that
recommendation letters of MPs in question were forged by the
accused for availing financial assistance of Rs. 20,000/- for
treatment of his mother Smt. Saraswati Parkhi which were used
by him fraudulently and with the knowledge of the same being
not genuine for the purpose of cheating and in order to cause
wrongful gain to himself and to cause wrongful loss to Ministry
of Health and Welfare, Government of India. The prosecution
successfully proved that the forged letters were sent by the
accused to expedite the matter regarding the financial assistance
but the cheque to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- was returned as Smt.
Saraswati Parkhi was not taking treatment from the concerned
Medical Institution as clear from the testimonies of PW3 and
NEETU
NAGAR
(Neetu Nagar)
Digitally signed by
ACJM-06 RADC NEETU NAGAR
Delhi: 28.03.2026 Page 48 of 49 Date: 2026.03.28
17:23:35 +0530
CC No. 301/2019 CBI VS. Jagannath D. Parkhi
PW5, due to which the cheating could not be completed,
however, the ingredients of attempt to cheat stand fulfilled.
CONCLUSION
58. Therefore, upon a conspectus of the entire facts and
circumstances and in view of the foregoing discussion, it is clear
that the prosecution has successfully proved the commission of
the alleged offence by the accused, beyond reasonable doubts.
Accused namely Jagannath D. Parkhi is thus held guilty for
commission of offence punishable under Section 420 read with
511/468/471 IPC and is accordingly convicted for the same.
59. Copy of judgment be given to the accused free of cost.
Digitally
signed by
Announced in the open NEETU
court today i.e. 28.03.2026 NEETU NAGAR
(This Judgment contains 49 pages NAGAR Date:
2026.03.28
signed by the undersigned) 17:23:40
+0530
(Neetu Nagar)
ACJM-06/RADC/New Dehi
28.03.2026
(Neetu Nagar)
ACJM-06 RADC
Delhi: 28.03.2026 Page 49 of 49
