testimony of PW-7 that on the basis of the signboards examined as per these panchnamas , he had given his expert report (PW-7/E). The prosecution has examined PW-11, Vipin Chaudhary, the then, Telecom Technical Assistant in the office of SDO(P), Yamuna Vihar at Brij Puri, and PW-13, Prem Chand, retired Head Clerk as independent witnesses to these panchnamas . PW-11 was a signatory to panchnama , Ex. PW-7/A and has admitted his signatures at the said memo. PW-13 was signatory to Ex. PW-7/B and Ex. PW-7/D and has admitted his signatures at said memos. However, PW-13, in his cross-examination, has stated that nothing was seized in his presence and all the paper work was done whilst sitting in the MCD Office of Division-XXII, Bhajan Pura. He has further stated that he had signed the said panchnama documents on the asking of XEN, Naresh Gupta, and the said documents were not read over to him. The said XEN, Naresh Gupta, was neither cited as witness nor examined by prosecution before the learned Trial Court. It is pertinent to note that one of the signatories to panchnama , Ex. PW-7/A, Sh. Om Prakash (UDC, Accounts clerk in Division XXII of MCD) was examined as PW-9 by the prosecution before the learned Trial Court, however, he has not stated anything regarding the said panchnama . Besides these prosecution witnesses, other independent witnesses who were signatories to the aforesaid panchnamas , were cited as witnesses alongwith chargesheet however, they were subsequently dropped and were not examined by the prosecution during the course of trial. In view of the inconsistencies in the testimonies of the aforesaid independent witnesses, as noted hereinabove, regarding the examination of the installed signboards and preparation of panchnamas, reliance cannot be placed on them.
