Delhi District Court
State vs Payal Bansikumar Patel on 20 May, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANIMESH KUMAR, JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-02, (NEW DELHI), PATIALA
HOUSE COURTS, DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF :
State Vs. Sayed Quiser
FIR No. 203/2003
U/s 120B/420/468/471/511 IPC.
PS : Chanakyapuri
Date of Institution : 05.05.2005
Date of Judgment : 20.05.2025
JUDGMENT
1. Serial No. of the case : 41113/2016
2. Name of the Complainant : Mr. John C Peters, Assistant Regions
3. Date of commission of offence :07.08.2003
4. Name of accused : Sayed Quiser, S/o Sh. Sayed Mahboob Hasan
5. Offence charged :120B/420/468/471/511 IPC
6. Plea of accused : Not guilty
7. Ld. APP for the State : Sh. Sharvan
8. Final Order :Acquittal Digitally signed by ANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2025.05.20 17:11:50 +0530 State Vs. Sayed Quiser & Ors., FIR No. 203/2003, PS Chanakyapuri, Judgment dated 20.05.2025 Page No. 1 of 30 BRIEF REASONS FOR ORDER:
1.Briefly stating, the present FIR was registered on the basis of complaint filed by Mr. John C Peters, Vice Consul, US Embassy, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi. As per the case of the prosecution, one person namely Payal Bansikumar Patel had applied for getting tourist visa from US embassy on 01.04.2005. She had filed certain documents along with the application including sponsorship letter issued by Member of Parliament, letter issued by Opinion Dynamics Corporation, bank statements etc. During the visa interview, it was found out that some of the documents filed by the accused Payal were forged. Thereafter, the US Embassy informed the police about the same and filed the present complaint.
2. Upon receiving the complaint / information from the US Embassy, the present FIR was registered. The investigation was conducted by the police officials of PS Chanakyapuri.
During the course of the investigation, the police officials arrested the accused Payal and Sunil Kumar and recorded their disclosure statements wherein they disclosed the involvement of one person namely Charles Robert who had handed over the forged documents to the accused Payal. Thereafter, raid was conducted at the house of the accused ANIMESH KUMAR State Vs. Sayed Quiser & Ors., FIR No. 203/2003, Digitally signed by ANIMESH KUMAR PS Chanakyapuri, Judgment dated 20.05.2025 Page No. 2 of 30 Date: 2025.05.20 17:12:07 +0530 Sayed Quiser and it was found out that the said accused Sayed Quiser was Charles Robert. Thus, at the instance of accused Payal, the accused Sayed Quiser was arrested in the present case and few documents including the telephone bills, documents related to one person namely Mandeep Singh were seized. The CPU of the computer of the accused Sayed Quiser was also seized and its hard disks were sent to the FSL for forensic examination. Further, during the course of the investigation, the specimen signatures and handwritings of the accused Payal and Sayed Quiser were collected and were also sent to FSL for forensic examination.
3.After the completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed in the present case by the investigating agency against the accused persons namely Payal, Sunil Kumar and Sayed Quiser. The accused persons namely Payal and Sunil Kumar were declared absconders during the pendency of the case in the Court. Thereafter, charge for the offence punishable u/s 120B/420/468/471/511 IPC was framed against the accused persons namely Sayed Quiser vide order dated 08.08.2018 to which he pleaded not guilty and opted to face trial.
4.In order to bring home the guilt against the accused Syed Quiser, following eighteen witnesses were examined by the State Vs. Sayed Quiser & Ors., FIR No. 203/2003, Digitally signed by PS Chanakyapuri, Judgment dated 20.05.2025 Page No. 3 of 30 ANIMESH KUMAR ANIMESH KUMAR Date:
2025.05.20 17:12:15 +0530 prosecution.
• HC Vijay Bhandary deposed as PW-1; • ASI Jasbir deposed as PW-2;
• HC J.P Dinkar deposed as PW-3; • Sh. P.M Makunna deposed as PW-4; • Sh. Nanak Kanaiya Lal Chandani deposed as PW-5; • Sh. Virender Chaudhary deposed as PW-6; • Sh. Ajay Kumar deposed as PW-7; • DO/ASI Charan Das deposed as PW-8; • Sh. Rupender Kumar Tiwari deposed as PW-9; • Inspector Saroj Tiwari deposed as PW-10; • Sh. Anil Kumar deposed as PW-11; • Sh. Ajrangi Kumar deposed as PW-12; • Sh. Gautam Meena deposed as PW-13; • Mr. Cory M Thomas deposed as PW-14; • Sh. Suraj Kumar deposed as PW-15; • Sh. Anupam Goel deposed as PW-16; • Sh. Prabanshu, Senior Manager (Law), PNB & OBC Bank deposed as PW-17; and • Sh. Krishna Sastry Pandyala, Retd. AGEQD, Office of Government Examine of Questioned Documents deposed as PW-18.
5.PW-1 is one of the police officials who was involved in the investigation of the present case. In the examination in chief, he deposed that on 07.04.2004, he was present at the police station and IO SI Saroj Tiwari informed him that they had to go Digitally signed by ANIMESH State Vs. Sayed Quiser & Ors., FIR No. 203/2003, ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2025.05.20 PS Chanakyapuri, Judgment dated 20.05.2025 Page No. 4 of 30 17:12:21 +0530 to Defence Service Sealing Club Road, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi. Thereafter, he along with the IO went to H. No. 11, Defence Service Sealing Club Road, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi where he met the accused Sayed Quiser and his PA Girish. IO told the accused Sayed Quiser regarding the fact that he had to search the house. The accused Sayed Quiser allowed the search of his house. IO recovered some documents related to telephone bills, some documents related to Mandeep Singh i.e. balance certificate of PNB Bank account, Xerox copy of RC, mark sheet of 11th and 12th Class, certificate of Board of Adult Education and Training, two CPUs etc. These articles were seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW-1/A. He correctly identified the said phone bills which were shown to him in the Court. The said bills are Ex. P1 to P5. He correctly identified the accused in the Court. PW-1 was duly cross-
examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused.
6.PW-2 ASI Jasbir was another police official who was involved in the investigation of the present case. In the examination in chief, he deposed that on 07.04.2004 at about 7 PM, two persons namely Sayed Quiser and Ganesh had come to the police station along with SI Saroj Tiwari. Both were interrogated by the IO in his presence. The accused Sayed State Vs. Sayed Quiser & Ors., FIR No. 203/2003, Digitally signed by ANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR PS Chanakyapuri, Judgment dated 20.05.2025 Page No. 5 of 30 KUMAR Date:
2025.05.20 17:12:29 +0530 Quiser was arrested by the IO in his presence vide arrest memo Ex. PW-2/A and his personal search was also conducted vide memo Ex. PW-2/B. His disclosure statement was also recorded vide memo Ex. PW-2/C. IO also obtained the specimen signatures of the accused Sayed Quiser Ex.
PW-2/D (colly). IO also obtained the signatures of Ganesh Prasad Ex. PW-2/E (colly). PW-2 was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused.
7.PW-3 was the police official who went to the US Embassy along with the IO on 07.08.2003. He deposed that on 07.08.2003, he along with the IO SI Suraj Tiwari went to US Embassy as the Consular of the Embassy called him. SI Saroj met with the Consular who handed over one complaint along with some documents and one lady namely Payal Bansi Kumar was also handed over. Thereafter, they came out of the US Embassy where they met 2-3 persons who were standing outside the US Embassy. The accused Payal Bansi Kumar introduced them with one person namely Sunil and told that the said person had arranged a meeting with one person who was living in Delhi. The said person had prepared all the documents. Thereafter, they all including Sunil and Payal went to the police station where the IO got the present FIR Digitally State Vs. Sayed Quiser & Ors., FIR No. 203/2003, signed by ANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR PS Chanakyapuri, Judgment dated 20.05.2025 Page No. 6 of 30 KUMAR Date:
2025.05.20 17:12:36 +0530 registered. Thereafter, the accused Sunil and Payal were arrested by the IO vide arrest memo Ex. PW-3/A and Ex.
PW-3/B. Their personal search was also conducted. The specimen signature of the accused Payal was obtained by the IO Ex. PW-3/G. He correctly identified both the accused persons in the Court. He was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused wherein he admitted that he did not know about the accused Sayed Quiser.
8.PW-4 was a bank official who was examined by the prosecution. He produced the documents pertaining to saving bank account number bearing no. 2970 having in the name of Patel Kumar Bansi Bhai. As per the bank record, the said account was in running condition and was opened on 16.06.1998 jointly in the name of Suresh Bhat S Dave, Piyush Dave and Nitika Dave. The said records are Ex. PW-4/A (OSR). He further stated that at present the said bank account was in the name of Nikit P Dave and Priyesh S Dave. The certified copy of the same is Ex. PW-4/B. He was duly cross- examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused wherein he stated that the account had nothing to do with the accused Sayed Quiser at any point of time.
9.PW-5 was running a cyber cafe and STD/PCO at 41, State Vs. Sayed Quiser & Ors., FIR No. 203/2003, Digitally signed by ANIMESH PS Chanakyapuri, Judgment dated 20.05.2025 Page No. 7 of 30 ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2025.05.20 17:12:43 +0530 Vimlanath Complex, High Tension Road, Subhanpura, Baroda. At that time, there were seven BSNL STD/PCO numbers which were allotted to him. He also stated that in the same year, police personnels from Delhi came to his shop and inquired about one mobile namer. He stated that mobile number 9810709370 was shown to him by the police.
10.PW-5 was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused. In the cross-examination, he deposed that he had started the business of STD/PCO in the year 1992 and he did not remember the year in which he had stopped the said business. He could not tell the date as to when the police officials visited him at his place. He also stated that he had given two bills to the police officials. He did not remember as to whether this two bills pertained to which land line numbers. He also could not locate the two bills in the judicial file.
11.PW-6 was one of the official of Angelique International Limited. He deposed that in the year 2004, he was working as Administrative Officer at Nehru Place office of the company. In the same year, one police official approached to his Nehru Place office and asked him about the Flat No. 111, Hemkund Tower, 98, Nehru Place, New Delhi. Thereafter, he gave written information on the letter pad of the complainant about State Vs. Sayed Quiser & Ors., FIR No. 203/2003, Digitally signed by ANIMESH PS Chanakyapuri, Judgment dated 20.05.2025 Page No. 8 of 30 ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2025.05.20 17:12:51 +0530 the fact that the said flat number was taken by the company on rent in the year 2001. The said letter is Ex. PW-6/A.
12.PW-6 was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused wherein he stated that he did not remember the name of the police official who approached his office and asked him about the above said flat. He admitted that he could not tell for what purpose the police official inquired him regarding the said flat in question. He admitted that he did not know about the accused Sayed Quiser. He also could not tell as to whether the accused Sayed Quiser came to his office at any point of time or not.
13.PW-7 was the nodal office of Bharti Limited. In the examination in chief, he deposed that he was called to prove on record the call data report pertaining to the mobile number 9810709370 between the period from 01.07.2003 and 17.08.2003. As per the office record, the said details were not available in his office. He was shown the customer agreement form of the said number Mark A which was in the name of Syed Bassan Mahmood. He could not tell about the said form as the same was not attested. He was also shown the CDR of the said mobile number. He again stated that he could not tell about the CDR Mark A-1 as the same was not attested.
ANIMESH State Vs. Sayed Quiser & Ors., FIR No. 203/2003, KUMAR PS Chanakyapuri, Judgment dated 20.05.2025 Page No. 9 of 30 Digitally signed by ANIMESH KUMAR Date: 2025.05.20 17:12:57 +0530
14.PW-7 was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused. In the cross-examination, he stated that he could not tell as to whether the phone number 9810709370 pertained to anyone namely Syed Basan Mehmood. He also could not tell as to whether the document Mark A was fake or not. He also could not tell as to whether the format of the CDR Mark A-1 was the same format in which the CDR of other telecom companies were given. He also could not tell as to whether Mark A-1 was fake or not.
15.PW-8 was the Duty Officer who had registered the present FIR Ex. PW-8/A on 07.08.2003. He proved on record the FIR and endorsement made on the tehrir Ex. PW-8/A. He also stated that after the registration of the FIR, the investigation was marked to SI Saroj Tiwari. He was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused.
16.PW-9 was the Notary Public who had attested the copy of driving license of one person namely Mandeep Singh. He deposed that he had verified the attested copy of the driving license and found that one person namely Prem Lal had submitted the said driving license to him for attestation purpose along with original driving license. He have his reply Ex. PW-9/A to the police officials. The attested copy of the State Vs. Sayed Quiser & Ors., FIR No. 203/2003, PS Chanakyapuri, Judgment dated 20.05.2025 Page No. 10 of 30 said driving license is Ex. PW-9/B (colly). He was duly cross- examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused.
17.PW-10 was the investigating officer of the present case. He gave a detailed account of the investigation conducted by him. In the examination in chief, he deposed that on 07.08.2003, he was telephonically informed by the Duty Officer that police was required at Visa Section of the USA Embassy. Thereafter, he along with one Constable went to the Visa section of the USA Embassy and met Mr. John C Peter, Vice Consul who handed over to him the complaint along with the passport and other documents. He also handed over the accused Payal Bansi Kumar and informed that the said accused was trying to obtain visa on the basis of forged documents. The said accused Payal informed that one person namely Sunil Kumar who was standing outside the gate of USA Embassy had helped her obtaining the documents as per the complaint through some agent namely Charles Robert. Thereafter, at the identification of the accused Payal, Sunil Kumar was apprehended and they were brought to the PS Chanakyapuri. Thereafter, he prepared the rukka Ex. PW-10/A and got the present case registered. After the registration of the present FIR, the accused persons were arrested and their personal State Vs. Sayed Quiser & Ors., FIR No. 203/2003, PS Chanakyapuri, Judgment dated 20.05.2025 Page No. 11 of 30 search was also conducted. Their disclosure statements were also recorded. The specimen signature of the accused Payal were also obtained. The accused Payal disclosed the mobile number of the accused Charles Robert. He also got verified the bank statement of the accused Payal, sponsorship letter, letter of Opinion Dynamics Corporation and two letter of Pathfinders India. Upon verification, the bank statement of the accused Payal was found genuine and the remaining documents were found to be genuine. He also examined the employee of Angelique International who informed that the company had nothing to do with the accused Payal. He also got clarification from Sh. Anil Kumar, Member of Parliament, Rajya Sabha who admitted that he did not know the accused Payal and also did not give any letter in support of the said accused. During the investigation, he also collected the CDR of the alleged mobile phone of Charles Robert. On 07.04.2004, he along with the accused Payal Bansi Kumar and HC Jasbir Singh reached the house of said Charles Robert situated in Jamia Nagar, Defence Officer's Sailing Club Road where the accused Payal identified Sayed Quiser as Charles Robert. Thereafter, he enquired from the accused Sayed Quiser and his PA Ganesh Prasad and seized some ANIMESH KUMAR State Vs. Sayed Quiser & Ors., FIR No. 203/2003, PS Chanakyapuri, Judgment dated 20.05.2025 Page No. 12 of 30 Digitally signed by ANIMESH KUMAR Date: 2025.05.20 17:13:04 +0530 documents pertaining to Mandeep Singh from his house. He arrested the accused Sayed Quiser, conducted his personal search and also recorded his disclosure statement. He also obtained his specimen signatures Ex. PW-10/C (colly). He also got verified the passport of the accused from RPO, Ahmedabad and found the same to be genuine. He also seized the hard disks from the CPU of the accused Sayed Quiser and sent them for forensic examination. After receiving the FSL Report, he filed the present charge-sheet in the Court. He was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused.
18.PW-11 was the Member of Parliament, Rajya Sabha who deposed that he did not issue any letter Ex. PW-11/A addressed to the US Embassy. He stated that the signature did not belong to him and the said document was forged document. He also stated that the same was neither issued by him nor by his office. He was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused wherein he stated that he did not know any of the accused.
19.PW-12 was another bank official examined by the prosecution. He proved on record two SDR receipts Ex. PW-12/A (colly) and Ex. PW-12/B (colly). He also proved on ANIMESH State Vs. Sayed Quiser & Ors., FIR No. 203/2003, KUMAR PS Chanakyapuri, Judgment dated 20.05.2025 Page No. 13 of 30 Digitally signed by ANIMESH KUMAR Date: 2025.05.20 17:13:10 +0530 record the verification letter dated 06.09.2003 regarding the said SDRs. He was not cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused despite the fact that opportunity was granted to him.
20.PW-13 was official of Passport Office, RPO, Ahmedabad who proved on record the authenticity of the passport of the accused Payal. He also produced the certified copy of certification report dated 29.07.2004 of passport no. A-6484977 dated 30.10.1998 Ex. PW-13/A (colly). He was not cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused despite the fact that opportunity was granted to him.
21.PW-14 was an official from US Embassy who proved on record the complaint Ex. PW-14/A by identifying the signature of the complainant. He was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused wherein he admitted that he did not bring any document which could show that he had worked with the complainant at any point of time. He also stated that he had never seen the complainant Mr. John C Peters writing or signing any documents. He voluntarily stated that in his service in the US Embassy, he had seen many documents which bore the signature of the complainant. He admitted that he was not aware as to which documents were sent along State Vs. Sayed Quiser & Ors., FIR No. 203/2003, Digitally signed by ANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR PS Chanakyapuri, Judgment dated 20.05.2025 Page No. 14 of 30 KUMAR Date:
2025.05.20 17:13:18 +0530 with the complainant. He admitted that he had no personal knowledge about the case.
22.PW-15, PW-16 and PW-17 were the formal witnesses and their testimonies were not of much relevance to the accused Sayed Quiser. PW-18 was the expert witness who proved on record the FSL Report Ex. PW-18/A (colly). He was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused.
23.Thereafter, at the request of the Ld. APP, prosecution evidence was closed. Thereafter, statement of the accused u/ s 313 Cr.P.C was recorded wherein the accused denied the incriminating materials against him and stated that he was falsely implicated in the present case. He also stated that he did not have any role to play in submitting the forged documents to the US Embassy and he was never in touch with the accused Payal and Sunil Kumar. He also stated that he had never met them in his life. He did not forge any document of any kind or make any forge signature. Thereafter, final arguments were heard.
24.During the final arguments, Ld. APP for the State argued that the prosecution had successfully proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubts. The FSL Report would ANIMESH KUMAR State Vs. Sayed Quiser & Ors., FIR No. 203/2003, PS Chanakyapuri, Judgment dated 20.05.2025 Page No. 15 of 30 Digitally signed by ANIMESH KUMAR Date: 2025.05.20 17:13:25 +0530 show that the accused Sayed Quiser was maker of the forged document involved in the present case as his specimen signature matched with signature appearing on one of the forged documents.
25.Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the accused Sayed Quiser submitted that the prosecution could not prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubts. It was argued that the accused Sayed Quiser was apprehended in the present case on the basis of disclosure statements of the co-accused persons which would be inadmissible in evidence. Also, no document in the name of Charles Robert was recovered from the house of the accused Sayed Quiser. Further, the forged documents were not signed by the accused Sayed Quiser. It was also argued that the accused Sayed Quiser cannot be convicted solely on the basis of FSL Report. It was also contended that no evidence was brought on record by the prosecution to prove that the mobile number actually belonged to the accused Sayed Quiser. Further, the documents which were seized from the house of the accused Sayed Quiser were not forged and the hard disks were not produced before the Court during the course of the investigation.
26.I have heard the Ld. APP for the state and Ld. counsel for State Vs. Sayed Quiser & Ors., FIR No. 203/2003, ANIMESH KUMAR PS Chanakyapuri, Judgment dated 20.05.2025 Page No. 16 of 30 Digitally signed by ANIMESH KUMAR Date: 2025.05.20 17:13:31 +0530 the accused at length. I have also given my thoughtful consideration to the material appearing on record.
27.In a criminal trial, the onus remains on the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts and the benefit of doubt, if any, must necessarily go in favour of the accused. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from 'may have' to 'must have'. In the case titled as Dr. S. L. Goswami vs State of Madhya Pradesh, 1972 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 258, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that:
"i) The onus of proving all the ingredients of an offence is always upon the prosecution and at no stage does is shift to the accused. It is no part of the prosecution duty to somehow hook the crook. Even in cases where the defence of the accused does not appear to be credible or is palpably false that burden does not become any the less.
ii) The standard of proof to prove a defence plea is not the same as that which rests upon the prosecution. Where the onus shifts to the accused, and the evidence on his behalf probabilizes the plea he will be entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt."
28.It is a settled law as well as matter of common knowledge that evidence of complainant/ victim and other public witnesses is the best available evidence and the case can be Digitally signed by State Vs. Sayed Quiser & Ors., FIR No. 203/2003, ANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR PS Chanakyapuri, Judgment dated 20.05.2025 Page No. 17 of 30 Date:
2025.05.20 17:13:37 +0530 proved beyond reasonable doubts on the basis of testimony of said witness only.
29.In the instant case, after perusing the materials available on record, I find that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused Sayed Quiser in the present beyond reasonable doubts for the reasons discussed in the subsequent paragraphs.
30.First and foremost, it should be noted that in the instant case, the complainant John C Peters who gave complaint to the police was never examined by the prosecution. Although, the complaint given by him to the police Ex. PW-14/A was formally proved by another Embassy official PW-14, however, the contents therein could not be proved as PW-14 was not personally aware about the same. He did not conduct the visa interview of the accused. Also, he did not even see the complainant signing during his course of employment. He could not state as to which all documents were handed over to the IO along with the complaint.
31.This would become all the more important in light of the fact that no seizure memo of the documents which were handed over to the police by the complainant along with the ANIMESH KUMAR State Vs. Sayed Quiser & Ors., FIR No. 203/2003, Digitally signed by PS Chanakyapuri, Judgment dated 20.05.2025 Page No. 18 of 30 ANIMESH KUMAR Date: 2025.05.20 17:13:42 +0530 complainant was prepared by the IO during the course of the investigation. This was a major loophole in the investigation conducted by the investigating agency. As per the prosecution, some documents such as visa application form of the accused Payal and alleged forged documents (bank statements, certificate, sponsorship letter etc.) were handed over to the IO by the complainant along with the complaint. These documents ought to be seized properly by the IO through seizure memo. Since, no seizure memo was prepared, it could not be said as to whether the documents which were subsequently sent to FSL were the same documents which were handed over by the complainant to the IO along with the complaint.
32.Thus, the non examination of the complainant would also prove fatal to the case of the prosecution as the complainant was not only a formal witness rather he was the person who had found out that the accused Payal had filed forged documents along with her visa application form. Thus, it was the complainant who had all the knowledge and information about the present case. He was also aware about the documents which were handed over to the IO along with the complaint. ANIMESH KUMAR Digitally signed State Vs. Sayed Quiser & Ors., FIR No. 203/2003, by ANIMESH KUMAR PS Chanakyapuri, Judgment dated 20.05.2025 Page No. 19 of 30 Date: 2025.05.20 17:13:48 +0530
33.Secondly, the prosecution was also required to prove the existence of forged documents in order to bring home the culpability of the accused Syed Quiser for the offence of forgery. As per the FSL Report Ex. PW-18/A, while the signature of the accused Syed Quiser matched with the signature of appearing on one of the alleged forged document issued on the letter head of Opinion Dynamics Corporation, however, the prosecution did not independently lead any evidence to prove that the said letter was indeed forged by examining any specific witness on this point. No witness from Opinion Dynamic Corporation was examined. Even the IO did not state in his testimony as to whether he had conducted any independent investigation to prove that the said letter was indeed forged. IO did not state in his testimony as to how did he arrive at the conclusion that the said document was forged.
34.Thirdly, as per the case of the prosecution, the accused Sayed Quiser was involved in the criminal conspiracy with the accused Payal as he had prepared the forged documents and handed over the same to her. The case of the prosecution qua the accused Naresh Kumar was based on the disclosure statements made by the accused persons ANIMESH State Vs. Sayed Quiser & Ors., FIR No. 203/2003, KUMAR PS Chanakyapuri, Judgment dated 20.05.2025 Page No. 20 of 30 Digitally signed by ANIMESH KUMAR Date: 2025.05.20 17:13:53 +0530 Payal and Sunil to the police and on the basis of FSL Report. The disclosure statements of the accused persons given in the police custody would be inadmissible in evidence. No discovery of any fact was made pursuant to the said disclosure statements.
35.Further, as per the disclosure statements, the accused Sayed Quiser was in touch with the accused Payal from a mobile number i.e. 9810709370. Even the said mobile number was not found to be registered or issued in the name of the accused Sayed Quiser. The CDRs which were collected during the course of the investigation could never been proved on record as the Nodal Officer from Airtel i.e. PW-7 did not confirm the authenticity of genuineness of the CDRs available in the judicial record. Further, as per the disclosure statements of accused Payal and Sunil, they met the accused Sayed Quiser in the lobby of Hotel Oberoi where the alleged forged documents were handed over by the accused Sayed Quiser to the accused Payal. However, no investigation was conducted by the investigating agency to show the presence of the accused Sayed Quiser in Hotel Oberoi on the said date.
36.In so far as culpability of the accused Sayed Quiser on the ANIMESH State Vs. Sayed Quiser & Ors., FIR No. 203/2003, KUMAR PS Chanakyapuri, Judgment dated 20.05.2025 Page No. 21 of 30 Digitally signed by ANIMESH KUMAR Date: 2025.05.20 17:13:59 +0530 basis of sole testimony of the expert witness PW-18 who proved on record the FSL Report Ex. PW-18/A is concerned, it should be noted that while FSL Report per se may be admissible in evidence provided the specimen signatures of the accused have been collected in a proper manner by the investigating agency by following all the established norms and safeguards which would rule out all the possibilities of tampering.
37.In the instant case, perusal of the materials available on record would show that, the specimen signatures of the accused Sayed Quiser were not collected with the permission of the Magistrate. They were not even collected in the presence of the Magistrate. Dealing with similar set of facts, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Aman v. State of Rajasthan, 1997 SCC (Crl) 777, has held the following:
"8.....Even though the specimen finger prints of Mohd. Aman had to be taken on a number of occasions at the behest of the Bureau, they were never taken before or under the order of a Magistrate in accordance with Section 5 of the Identification of Prisoners Act. It is true that under Section 4 thereof police is competent to take fingerprints of the accused but to dispel any suspicion as to ANIMESH KUMAR State Vs. Sayed Quiser & Ors., FIR No. 203/2003, Digitally signed by ANIMESH PS Chanakyapuri, Judgment dated 20.05.2025 Page No. 22 of 30 KUMAR Date: 2025.05.20 17:14:05 +0530 its bona fides or to eliminate the possibility of fabrication of evidence it was eminently desirable that they were taken before or under the order of a Magistrate...."
38.Similarly, in the case of K. Dhanasekaran vs. State 2003 (1) CTC 223, the Hon'ble Madras High Court had reiterated that it would not be safe to rely upon the report/testimony of the handwriting expert if specimen signatures were not obtained as per the procedure laid down under Section 5 of the Identification of Prisoners Act. Relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced below:
8. It is clear that in the light of the observation made in order to dispel suspicion as to its bona fides or to eliminate the possibility of fabrication of evidence, it is desirable to get the specimen signatures from the accused before or under the order of a Magistrate. Admittedly, in our case, the Inspector has not obtained permission or any order from the Magistrate concerned to get the signatures from the accused as well as P.W.1 for sending the same to expert's opinion.
39.Perusal of the record would show that no permission of any Magistrate was taken by the IOs before taking the specimen signatures of the accused persons. Also, the specimen signatures were not collected in the presence of the Magistrate or any public persons. This would become all the ANIMESH KUMAR State Vs. Sayed Quiser & Ors., FIR No. 203/2003, PS Chanakyapuri, Judgment dated 20.05.2025 Page No. 23 of 30 Digitally signed by ANIMESH KUMAR Date: 2025.05.20 17:14:10 +0530 more important in light of the fact that hard disks were seized from the CPUs in the presence of the Ld. Magistrate. It would show that the IO was aware about this requirement.
40.Moreover, there are some other factors which would show that it would not be safe to solely rely upon the FSL Report in order to convict the accused Sayed Quiser in the present case. It should be noted that as per the record, the specimen signatures of the accused Sayed Quiser were collected by the IO PW-10 on 08.04.2004. However, the same was sent to FSL on 14.07.2004.
41.Therefore, there is clearly a significant gap between the dates on which the specimen signatures of the accused persons were collected and date on which they were sent for forensic examination. No explanation could be provided by the prosecution to explain the said delay in sending the documents and specimen signatures of the accused persons for forensic examination. IO also did not state in his testimony as to whether the documents involved in the present case were sent to the FSL Department in sealed condition or not. It is also not clear as to whether the documents which were sent to FSL were the same documents which were handed over by the complainant along with the complaint. It would ANIMESH State Vs. Sayed Quiser & Ors., FIR No. 203/2003, KUMAR PS Chanakyapuri, Judgment dated 20.05.2025 Page No. 24 of 30 Digitally signed by ANIMESH KUMAR Date: 2025.05.20 17:14:17 +0530 become all the more important in light of the fact that no seizure memo was separately prepared by the IO at the time of seizing the said documents. Therefore, the prosecution has miserably failed to establish that the documents were not
- or could not be - tampered with before it reached the FSL for examination.
42.Even if I ignore the missing links of the prosecution, then also, I find that the FSL Report Ex. PW-18/A (colly) could not be solely relied upon in order to convict the accused Sayed Quiser for the offence of forgery in the absence of any other corroborative materials. It is settled proposition of law that before acting upon the opinion of the hand-writing expert, prudence requires that the Court must see that such evidence is corroborated by other evidence either direct or circumstantial evidence. The evidence of an expert is rather a weak piece of evidence, and, therefore, should not be considered as "conclusive" proof in the absence of any independent and reliable corroboration. At this stage, reference can be taken from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Magan Bihari Lal v. State of Punjab (1977) 2 SCC 210, wherein while dealing with the evidence of a handwriting expert, the Apex Court Court ANIMESH State Vs. Sayed Quiser & Ors., FIR No. 203/2003, KUMAR PS Chanakyapuri, Judgment dated 20.05.2025 Page No. 25 of 30 Digitally signed by ANIMESH KUMAR Date: 2025.05.20 17:14:22 +0530 opined that:
"... We think it would be extremely hazardous to condemn the appellant merely on the strength of opinion evidence of a handwriting expert. It is now well settled that expert opinion must always be received with great caution and perhaps none so with more caution than the opinion of a handwriting expert. There is a profusion of precedential authority which holds that it is unsafe to base a conviction solely on expert opinion without substantial corroboration. This rule has been universally acted upon and it has almost become a rule of law. It was held by this Court in Ram Chandra v. State of U.P. AIR 1957 SC 381 that it is unsafe to treat expert handwriting opinion as sufficient basis for conviction, but it may be relied upon when supported by other items of internal and external evidence. This Court again pointed out in Ishwari Prasad Misra v. Mohd. Isa AIR 1963 SC 1728 that expert evidence of handwriting can never be conclusive because it is, after all, opinion evidence, and this view was reiterated in Shashi Kumar Banerjee v. Subodh Kumar Banerjee AIR 1964 SC 529 where it was pointed out by this Court that expert's evidence as to handwriting being opinion evidence can rarely, if ever, take the place of substantive evidence and before acting on such evidence, it would be desirable to consider whether it is corroborated either by clear direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence. This Court had again occasion to consider the evidentiary value of expert opinion in regard to handwriting in ANIMESH KUMAR State Vs. Sayed Quiser & Ors., FIR No. 203/2003, PS Chanakyapuri, Judgment dated 20.05.2025 Page No. 26 of 30 Digitally signed by ANIMESH KUMAR Date:
2025.05.20 17:14:30 +0530 Fakhruddin v. State of M.P. AIR 1967 SC 1326 and it uttered a note of caution pointing out that it would be risky to found a conviction solely on the evidence of a handwriting expert and before acting upon such evidence, the court must always try to see whether it is corroborated by other evidence, direct or circumstantial."
43.This ratio was reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Murari Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1980) 1 SCC 704, wherein while discussing reliability of evidence of hand writing expert, the Apex Court held as under:
"4. .......True, it has occasionally been said on very high authority that it would be hazardous to base a conviction solely on the opinion of a handwriting expert. But, the hazard in accepting the opinion of any expert, handwriting expert or any other kind of expert, is not because experts, in general, are unreliable witnesses -- the quality of credibility or incredibility being one which an expert shares with all other witnesses -- but because all human judgment is fallible and an expert may go wrong because of some defect of observation, some error of premises or honest mistake of conclusion. The more developed and the more perfect a science, the less the chance of an incorrect opinion and the converse if the science is less developed and imperfect. The science of identification of finger-prints has attained near perfection and the risk of an incorrect opinion is practically non- existent. On the other hand, the science of identification of handwriting is not ANIMESH KUMAR State Vs. Sayed Quiser & Ors., FIR No. 203/2003, PS Chanakyapuri, Judgment dated 20.05.2025 Page No. 27 of 30 Digitally signed by ANIMESH KUMAR Date: 2025.05.20 17:14:36 +0530 nearly so perfect and the risk is, therefore, higher. But that is a far cry from doubting the opinion of a handwriting expert as an invariable rule and insisting upon substantial corroboration in every case, howsoever the opinion may be backed by the soundest of reasons. It is hardly fair to an expert to view his opinion with an initial suspicion and to treat him as an inferior sort of witness. His opinion has to be tested by the acceptability of the reasons given by him. An expert deposes and not decides. His duty "is to furnish the Judge with the necessary scientific criteria for testing the accuracy of his conclusion, so as to enable the Judge to form his own independent judgment by the application of these criteria to the facts proved in evidence (Vide Lord President Cooper in Davis v. Edindurgh Magistrate, 1953 SC 34 quoted by Professor Cross in his evidence).
6. Expert testimony is made relevant by Section 45 of the Evidence Act and where the Court has to form an opinion upon a point as to identity of handwriting, the opinion of a person "specially skilled"
"in questions as to identity of handwriting" is expressly made a relevant fact......... So, corroboration may not invariably be insisted upon before acting on the opinion of an handwriting expert and there need be no initial suspicion. But, on the facts of a particular case, a court may require corroboration of a varying degree. There can be no hard and fast rule, but nothing will justify the rejection of the opinion of an expert supported by unchallenged reasons on the sole ground that it is not corroborated. The approach of a court Digitally signed by ANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR Date:
KUMAR 2025.05.20 17:14:44 State Vs. Sayed Quiser & Ors., FIR No. 203/2003, +0530 PS Chanakyapuri, Judgment dated 20.05.2025 Page No. 28 of 30 while dealing with the opinion of a handwriting expert should be to proceed cautiously, probe the reasons for the opinion, consider all other relevant evidence and decide finally to accept or reject it."
44.Recently, in the case of Padum Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2020) 3 SCC 35, the Hon'ble Supreme Court examined in detail the relevancy and reliability of the evidence of hand writing expert and reiterated that such evidences are relatively weak piece of evidences which need to be corroborated from other evidences available on record.
45.In the instant case, the prosecution could not bring on record any material which could corroborate the FSL Report Ex. PW-18/A (colly) as per which the specimen signature / of the accused Sayed Quiser matched with the signature appearing on one of the alleged forged document i.e. letter purportedly issued on the letterhead of Opinion Dynamics Corporation. In fact, the prosecution could not even properly prove that the said letter was actually a false document.
46.Therefore, in view of the above, I find that it would not be safe to solely rely upon the testimony of the expert witness PW-18 and FSL Report to convict the accused Sayed Quiser in the present case in the absence of any corroborating ANIMESH KUMAR State Vs. Sayed Quiser & Ors., FIR No. 203/2003, PS Chanakyapuri, Judgment dated 20.05.2025 Page No. 29 of 30 Digitally signed by ANIMESH KUMAR Date: 2025.05.20 17:14:50 +0530 evidence and especially in light of the fact that specimen signatures and handwritings of the accused persons were not collected by following all the safeguards.
47.Therefore, in view of the above discussions and findings, I find that while there are grave suspicions against the accused Sayed Quiser in the present case, however, the prosecution has failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubts. Accordingly, the accused namely Sayed Quiser is acquitted for the offences U/s 120B/420/468/471/511 IPC.
48.Ordered accordingly.
Pronounced in open Court, on this Day of 20th May, 2025. This judgment consists of 30 signed pages.
Digitally signed by ANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2025.05.20 17:14:57 +0530 (ANIMESH KUMAR)
Judicial Magistrate First Class-02 New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts State Vs. Sayed Quiser & Ors., FIR No. 203/2003, PS Chanakyapuri, Judgment dated 20.05.2025 Page No. 30 of 30