Delhi District Court
State vs . Naresh Kumar on 4 January, 2012
IN THE COURT OF MS. NAVITA KUMARI : MM, NEW DELHI
STATE VS. NARESH KUMAR
FIR No. : 418/1992
P.S. : Tilak Marg
U/Sec. : 420/468/120B IPC
JUDGMENT :
1. Srl. No. of the case & Date of institution : 524/2 & 30.09.1998
2. Date of commission of offence : 03.09.1992
3. Name of the complainant : State through Sh. D.P. Verma
4. Name of the accused : 1. H.C. Naresh Kumar No.85, Security Line, New Delhi.
: 2. Ct. Krishan Pal Singh, No.846, Security Line New Delhi.
5. Nature of offence complained of : U/Sec.420/468/471/120B/ 34 IPC
6. Plea of the accused person : Accused persons pleaded not guilty
7. Date reserved for order : 23.12.2011
8. Final Order : Acquitted
9. Date of such order : 04.01.2012 BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE CASE:
1. In brief the chargesheet U/Sec.420/466/467/468/471/120B/34 IPC was filed against accused H.Ct. Naresh Kumar and Ct. Krishan Pal on basis of allegations that on 03.09.1992 to onwards at Security Police Line, Copernicus Marg, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of P.S. Tilak Marg, they both entered into an conspiracy to commit an offence. Further during the said period, they both cheated the complainant by way of making bogus entry in the character rolls of 24 Constables for the extra benefit for list. Further accused Naresh Kumar alongwith coaccused Kishan Pal forged the record of bogus entry in the character rolls of 24 constables for extra benefit for A list during posting in Security unit, when they were officiating the office of Security Unit as a Public Servant and they used the list of 24 constables for whom they made bogus entry in their character roll, which they both knew or had reason to believe at that time, when used it to be a forged document. Further accused HC Naresh Kumar alongwith coaccused Kishan Pal forged certain document i.e record of 24 Constables regarding bogus entry in their character rolls intending that it shall be used for the purpose of cheating at that time and they both thereby committed an offences punishable U/Sec.120 B/420/466/471/468 r/w 120B IPC.
2. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed. After supplying the copies to accused persons U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C and after consideration of the entire material the Ld. Predecessor Court vide order dated 30.01.2001 held that prima facie a case U/Sec.U/Sec.120 B/420/466/471/468 r/w 120B IPC was made out against both the accused and accordingly charge was framed against both the accused U/Sec. U/Sec.120B/420/466/471/468 r/w 120B IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. The prosecution had cited 42 witnesses, out of which only 18 witnesses were examined.
4. Statement of accused persons was recorded U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. on 20.07.2010 in which they denied the case of the prosecution and pleaded innocence. They said that they have been falsely implicated in this case. However, they opted for not leading any evidence in their defence.
5. I have heard the final arguments from Ld. APP Sh. Naresh Kumar Verma and Ld. defence counsel and perused the entire record.
6. PW1 is Inspector Jagbir Singh who has deposed that on 05.09.1992 he was posted in Tilak Marg Police Station as SI and was dutyOfficer on that day from 4.00 p.m to 12.00 a.m. and about 11.00 ap.m. He received a rukka, on the basis of which he registered the FIR Ex.PW1/A and handed over the copy of the FIR alongwith his endorsement on the rukka to SI Bhagat Ram Dhanda.
7. PW2 is SI Prakash Chand Sharma who has deposed that on 06.09.1992 he received the case file bearing FIR No.418/92 for further investigation and the said file remained with him till 05.10.1992 and after that the file was transferred to Special Staff, New Delhi for further investigation. He has further deposed that he could not record any statement or collect any documentary evidence during the period file remained with him.
8. PW3 is Inspector Suresh Dabas who has deposed that on 28.12.1992 he was posted at Special Staff, New Delhi District and on that day, I.O/ASI Rajesh had seized certain pages of character roll vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/A in which bogus entries were made. He exhibited the character roll of 20 Constable Ex.PW3/B/1 to B20 and deposed that the character roll of Constables mentioned at serial No.8, 9, 10 and 16 in the seizure memo were not available.
9. PW4 is H.Ct. Beer Singh who deposed that he had been working in the character roll branch of Security Unit of Delhi Police since 1991 and remained there as Typist till 1992 and thereafter worked as Dealing Clerk of the Belt No.1401 to 1750 of lower subordinate. His further examinationinchief was deferred by the Ld. APP due to absence of certain documents but he was never called again for further examinationinchief.
10. PW5 is H.Ct. Yash Pal who has deposed that he joined Delhi Police as Constable in the year 1982 and in the year 1995 he was posted as Constable in Security Branch. He has further deposed that he had never worked in character roll branch during his posting in that period. He further deposed that he had no relationship of whatsoever sort with any employee of character roll branch and that he had no knowledge in what manner and under what circumstances his wrong entry had been made in character roll branch. He has further deposed that he had never influenced anyone for making any entry in his character roll. In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence counsel he stated that he had no knowledge whether any wrong entry was made in his individual character roll.
11. PW6 is Constable Dharmbir who deposed that in the year June 1994 he was posted as Constable in Security Unit but he had never been posted in character roll branch and thus had no concern whatsoever with character roll branch personnels and also did not know who had made wrong/false entries in character roll branch and that he had not induced anyone for the said purpose.
12. PW7 is D.P. Verma, DCP, Traffic who has deposed that on 03.09.1992 he was posted as Additional DCP, Head Quarter, Security and that the test for "A" was declared vide PHQ's order No. 29198263/SIP/PHQ dated 30.09.1991 and that when they were sending the information, it was noticed that bogus entries in respect of commendation cards in respect of 24 character rolls were found to be made. He further deposed that in this regard enquiries were conducted by ACP, Head Quarter/Security Sh. Prabhati Lal which transpired bogus entires in the character rolls of 24 police constables and then Dealing Clerk H.Ct. Naresh Kumar and Ct. Krishan Pal Singh were found involved in the said incident by the Enquiry officer Sh. Prabhati Lal after obtaining necessary approval of Additional Commissioner of Police (S & T). He further deposed that thereafter he sent his complaint running into two pages which is Ex.PW10/A to SHO P.S. Tilak Marg for investigating the matter and taking legal action against the culprits.
In this crossexamination by the defence counsel he stated that besides the two accused persons, there were other 16 police officials posted in character Roll Branch during that period. He admitted the suggestion of the defence counsel to be correct that there were other police officials in the character roll Branch who also made entries in the Character Roll of other individual/police personnels posted in the security Line. He also admitted it correct that ACP Head Quarter was the signing authority on the character roll of the police personnels and that there were two officers who used to supervise the work of Character Roll Branch were to be made on the basis of documents produced by the individual oft he police personnel or issued by the Department and that the ACP concerned, the signing authority, was supposed to check and tally the entries according to the documents produced by the individual, available on the record or produced/issued by the Department. He further deposed that he himself did not make any personal enqquiry from the 24 Constables whose character rolls were stated to contain certain bogus entries. He denied the suggestion that he had made complaint nor in order to save the 24 Constables, though there is no iota of evidence against the accused persons.
13. PW8 is J.C. Meena (Retired ACP), Security who has deposed that on 18.12.1992 he was posted as ACP, Head Quarter, Vinay Marg and on that day he handed over 24 character rolls Ex.PW3/B1 to B20 to lower subordinates(Constables) posted at Security, Vinay Marg to the I.O./S.I. Rajesh Kumar vide memo Ex.PW3/A and SI Suresh Dabas was also present at that time.
14. PW9 is H.Ct. Rambir who has deposed that on 055.10.1994 he was posted as Head Constable//HMC(R) of P.S. Tilak Marg and on that day I.O./Inspector Radha Raman had handed over him 30 papers including specimen documents for making Road Certificate for its onward transmission to the CFSL and he had issued Road Certificate vide R.C. No.125/21/94 and that after depositing the same in CFSL, the said I.O. had returned him back the receipt of the said R.C. but the copy of R.C. was not found on record and his further examination inchief was deferred on 23.11.2007 for want of copy of the RC and its register. When the witness came again on 07.02.2008 he produced copy of order of ACP, Head Quarter bearing No.1152728/NDD (G III), New Delhi dated 04.08.2003 as per which the record of 1991 to 1998 was destroyed.
15. PW10 is ACP Ram Chander Singh who has deposed that he was posted as ACP, head Quarter w.e.f.07.01.2008 and he had brought the original file in respect of departmental inquiry of both the accused H.Ct. Naresh Kumar and Krishan Pal and exhibited the carbon copy of letter No.4921/HAP/SEC. Dated New Delhi03.09.1992 running into two pages as Ex.PW7/A on the basis of which the FIR in the present case was registered. When the PW7 DCP D.P. Verma was cross examined, it was found that only one page of his complaint dated 03.09.1992 was on record and the second page was missing. However, this witness i.e.PW10 brought the second page of the said complaint during his testimony and exhibited the same as Ex.PW10/A.
16. PW11 is Dr. M.A. Ali, Retired Principal Scientific Officer from CFSL who has deposed that the Documents of this case were submitted for examination by the SHO P.S. Tilak Marg vide memo No. 2890/SHO/RM dated 05.10.94 and he examined all the questioned and specimen writings with the help of scientific aids and submitted his report running into three pages which is Ex.PW11/A. He further deposed that he again received further documents of this case by SHO P.S. Tilak Marg vide memo No. 2890 dated 05.10.94 and 3900/SHO/Tilak Marg dated 01.12.94 and after examining the same submitted his report Ex.PW11/B. Further examinationinchief of this witness was deferred for want of original documents but he was not examined thereafter.
17. PW12 is H.Ct. Hansraj who has deposed that in the year 1992 he was posted at Main Security Line, Vinay Marg as Constable and remained posted there from 1992 to 1995. He has further deposed that he was never posted in the Character Roll branch between 1990 to 1`995 and had never induced/influenced any person of Character Roll Branch to make any false entry in his character roll. During his crossexamination by the defence counsel he stated that he had no knowledge if any false entry was made in his character roll.
18. PW13 is H.Ct. Raj Kumar who has deposed that on 10.07.1990 he was posted as Constable at Security Main Line, Mandi House. He deposed that he never posted at Character Roll Branch and no relative of his family/friend was posted in character roll branch. He did not know who made the wrong entry in his criminal roll.
19. PW14 is H.Ct. Jagdish who has deposed that on 10.07.1990 he was posted as Constable at Security Main Line, Mandi House. He deposed that he was never posted at Character Roll Branch and no relative of his family/friend was posted in character roll branch. He did not know who made the wrong entry in his criminal roll.
20. PW15 is H.Ct. Hari Om who has deposed that he was posted as Constable at Security Main Line, Mandi House. He deposed that he was never posted at Character Roll Branch and no relative of his family/friend was posted in character roll branch. He did not know who made the wrong entry in his criminal roll.
21. PW16 is Inspector Radha Raman who has deposed that on 03.05.1994 he was posted as SubInspector at P.S. Tilak Marg and on that day the investigation of the present case was handed over to him. During that course of investigation, he obtained specimen signature of accused persons and recorded statements of concerned witnesses. He send the questioned documents Ex.PW16/P1 to P17 (Collectively) alongwith specimen signatures of the accused persons to CFSL for the expert opinion, the question. He arrested accused persons. On 02.12.1994 he was transferred/promoted as Inspetor, SIU, New Delhi District and he handed over the case file to MHC(R) P.S. Tilak Marg.
22. PW17 is Inspector Anand Sagar who has deposed that on 10.11.1994 he was posted as Inspector at P.S. Tilak Marg where Ct. Kishan pal Singh gave his specimen handwriting willingly to Inspector Radha Raman, who was the IO of the case containing 8 pages of which he had signed as a witness.
23. PW18 is Retd. SI Lal Ram who has deposed that he was posted as SI at P.S. Tilak Marg and on that day he received the case file of this case for investigation. He collected FSL report regarding specimen hand writing of accused Kishan Pal but he did not received the questioned documents. He prepared the chargesheet of the case and filed the same
24. The Ld. APP has prayed for punishing the accused U/Sec.
420/466/468/471/120B IPC by stating that the prosecution has proved its case against both the accused. But the Ld. Defence counsel has argued that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case against the accused persons as neither it has been proved that the accused persons had entered into any conspiracy to commit any offence nor it is proved that they had made any bogus entries in the character rolls of 24 Constables and thereby cheated the complainant, etc. he has prayed for acquittal of both the accused by stating that both are innocent and having committed any offence.
9. Now, let us see the relevant provisions of law under which the accused has been booked and tried for.
U/Sec.120B IPC: Punishment of criminal conspiracy(1) whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment or life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offences.
(2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both.
U/Sec. 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 7 years, and shall also be liable to fine. U/Sec. 466 IPC: Forgery of record of Court or of public register, etc. (Whoever forges a document or an electronic record), purporting to be a record or proceeding of or in a Court of justice, or a register of birth, baptism, marriage or burial, or a register kept by a public servant as such, or a certificate or document purporting to be made by a public servant in his official capacity, or an authority to institute or defend a suit, or to take any proceedings therein, or to confess judgment, or a power of attorney, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. U/Sec.468 IPC. Forgery for purpose of cheating- Whoever commits forgery, intending that the (document or electronic record forged) shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
U/Sec.471 IPC Using as genuine a forged (document or electronic record) Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any (document or electronic record) which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged (document or electronic record), shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such (document or electronic record).
And the forgery has been defined in Section 463 IPC as follows:
Section 463 IPC: Forgery Whoever makes any false documents or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record, 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 any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery.
Thus it is clear from the abovesaid provisions that in order to prove the offences U/Sec.466/468/471/420/120B IPC, the accused must have forged the record of public register, etc. for the purpose of cheating and have used the said forged documents as genuine while knowing the same to be forged one. Further cheating any person by dishonestly inducing him to delivery any property or to make or alter or destroy the whole or any part of valuable security and have entered into conspiracy and have entered into conspiracy for committing of those offences. So, accordingly, in the present case the prosecution was required to prove that the accused persons had hatched the criminal conspiracy to make bogus entries in the character rolls of the 24 Constables for the purpose of cheating and used the same as genuine document, though having knowledge of the same to be forged and further that they cheated the complainant or those 24 Constables and dishonestly induced them to deliver any property or to make, alter or destroy or valuable security. But the prosecution has failed to prove the same. The prosecution has failed to prove that the alleged entries made in the character rolls of those 24 Constables are false or bogus because neither any material is placed on record to prove the same nor the ACP Mr. Puggal, who brought the matter regarding bogus entires to the knowledge of the complainant, was cited or examined as witness nor any order for enquiry or the report of the said enquiry is proved on record nor the Enquiry Officer of the said enquiry, if any, was examined as witness to establish as to on the basis of what material the report was prepared. The complainant i.e PW7 himself has deposed in his testimony that he personally did not enquire from those 24 constables to know if the entries were false or bogus. The prosecution has examined some of these 24 constables as PWs i.e. as PW5, PW12, PW13, PW14 and PW15 and all these witnesses have stated that they have no knowledge, if any bogus/false entires is existing on their character rolls and further stated that the police/I.O. never enquired from them regarding their character roll at any point of time. They stated that their character roll is in accordance with the qualifications they are possessing and thus there is no false entry in their character roll.
Though the prosecution had cited hand writing expert from CFSL as witness and examined him as PW11 but his testimony could not be read in evidence because neither his examinationinchief was recorded completely nor he had put himself for crossexamination by the defence counsel. This handwriting expert was cited as witness by the police for examining the specimen signature/hand writing of the accused persons to know if the alleged bogus entires in the character rolls were made by them. But the contention of the accused persons is that their specimen hand writing was never obtained by the police. IO, PW16 in his examinationinchief has stated that he had obtained the specimen signature of the accused persons. He did not say that he had obtained the specimen hand writing of the accused persons. It was the hand writing and not the signatures of the accused persons which were relevant for the present case as the writing of the person who made the alleged bogus entries was required to be examined and not his signatures. The version of the prosecution that specimen hand writing of accused persons were sent to CFSL does not appears to be trustworthy because neither any memo of taking the specimen hand writing of accused is placed on record nor even the I.O./PW16 remembered the place, date or time when the alleged specimen hand writing/signatures were obtained by him. He has categorically admitted in his crossexamination that neither he obtained any prior permission from the Court or any senior officer of the department obtained the specimen signature/hand writing of the accused persons nor he prepared any memo regarding taking of specimen hand writing/signature of accused persons.
Thus, the prosecution has remained unsuccessful to prove that the specimen signatures/hand writing sent to the CFSL was of the accused persons. It is further relevant to mention that as per PW16 he had sent the questioned documents consisting of 71 pages to the CFSL for expert opinion but contrary to that the PW9 MHC(R) of P.S. Tilak Marg has stated that the I.O. had handed over only 30 papers including specimen documents for making Road Certificate for its onward transmission to the CFSL. Thus, neither it is certain as to how many pages were sent to the CFSL nor it is proved that the specimen hand writing sent to the CFSL was of accused persons. Thus the prosecution has utterly failed to prove that the alleged bogus entires made in the character rolls of 24 constables were made by the accused persons or that the specimen signatures sent to the CFSL were of the accused persons or that the alleged entires were actually bogus/false. The prosecution has also failed to prove that the accused persons have dishonestly induced anyone to deliver any property or to make alter or destroy or valuable security in lieu of making bogus entires in the character rolls. The prosecution has further failed to prove that the accused persons had entered into a criminal conspiracy to commit the offence of forged and bogus entries in the character rolls. Since the prosecution has failed to prove its case against both the accused persons, so both the accused persons are acquitted for the offences punishable U/Sec. 466/468/471/420/120B IPC. Their bail bonds are cancelled. Sureties are discharged. File be consigned to Record Room.
(Announced in the open (NAVITA KUMARI) Court on 04.01.2012) MM, NEW DELHI