Delhi District Court
State vs Javed Akhtar on 15 February, 2024
1
IN THE COURT OF AISHWARYA SHARMA:
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE - 01, SOUTH WEST DISTRICT
DWARKA COURTS: DELHI
1. CC No. : 9211/2017
2. Date of Institution: : 27.11.2017
3. Name of the Complainant : Prof. Sanjay Shrivastav, Secretary
Medical Counsil of India, Sector 8,
Dwarka Delhi.
4. Name, address and parentage of : Javed Akhtar
the accused S/O Sh. Abid Hussain
R/O Plot NO.4, Aman Colony,
Vigyan Nagar, Kota Rajasthan
5. Charge framed against accused : U/S 420, 471 IPC
6. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
7. Final Order : Convicted
8. Date of reserve for orders : 09.11.2023
9. Date for announcing the orders : 15.02.2024
Present : Sh. Sudhanshu Saini Ld. APP for state.
Accused Javed Akhtar in person (through VC)
Sh. Dushyant Kumar Ld. Counsel for accused.
FIR NO. 89/ 2013
St. Vs. Javed Akhtar
2
JUDGMENT
1. The accused Javed Akhtar has been chargesheeted for offence U/S 420, 468, 471 IPC. The genesis of the prosecution story as narrated in the complaint is that the accused Javed Akhtar submitted his 10+2 Marksheet issued by Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi with Medical Council of India while applying for registration (as he had completed his medical course from a foreign institution) and this marksheet vide office letter NO. NO. MCI203(11102161)/Regn./117543, Dated 16.07.2012, was sent for verification to the Secretary, Jharkhand Intermediate Education, Ranchi and reply from the Deputy Secretary, Jharkhand Academic Council Ranchi was received by MCI vide letter NO. JAC/Ver/5287/12/Ranchi, dated 27.07.2012 whereby it was intimated that Roll Code 9729, Roll NO. 10005, year 2003 (A) in the name of Javed Akhtar "avantit nahi hain". Since, the said candidate Mr. Javed Akhtar has submitted fake document i.e. 10+2 marksheet, the Medical Council of India through Prof. Sanjay Srivastava got the present case FIR registered with the police. The criminal law was set into motion by registration of FIR against the accused and investigation into the case began. After completion of the investigation, the present chargesheet was filed for conducting trial of the accused for the alleged offences.
2. After taking cognizance of the offence, the copy of chargesheet was supplied to the accused in compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C. The arguments on charge were heard by my Ld. Predecessor and the accused was discharged for the FIR NO. 89/ 2013 St. Vs. Javed Akhtar 3 offence U/S 468 IPC and the charge for offence U/S 420 & 471 IPC was framed against the accused vide order dated 10.05.2018. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was led.
3. The proceedings U/S 294 Cr.P.C. were conducted wherein accused admitted the factum of registration of FIR No. 89/2013 dated 25.03.2013 as Ex. A1. Pursuant the admission made by accused of this document, witness at Sr. No.4 DO HC Shri Krishan, was dropped from the list of witness.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
4. In order to prove allegations against accused, prosecution has examined six prosecution witnesses. The present case is entirely document based and therefore before proceeding to discuss deposition, the documents exhibited are provided in the table below Witness Exhibiting Identification Description PW1 Dr.Sanjay Ex. PW1/A Letter No. MCI203(12102161) Srivastava /Regn/159288 datd 14.02.2013 Ex.PW1/B The Application Form along with (Colly) documents of accused.
Mark A/ Mark Copy of 10+2 Marksheet of accused
B2
Mark A1 Letter NO. MCI203 (T12102161) /2012/
FIR NO. 89/ 2013
St. Vs. Javed Akhtar
4
Regn./117543 datd 16.07.2012 sent by MCI
to Jharkhand Council
Ex.PW1/C Reply received from Jharkhand Academic
Council Ranchi vide letter No. JAC/
Ver/5287/12./Ranchi dated 27.07.2012
Ex. PW1/A Complaint/ letter to SHO for registration of
FIR.
PW2 Rajiv Ex.PW2/A Letter No. MCI203 (12102161)/2016
Kumar Regn/107829 dated 10.05.2016 vide which
he provided documents to IO.
Mark B1 Notice U/S 91 Cr.P.C dated 29.04.2016
given by IO to MCI
PW4 Eugine Minj Ex.PW4/A Attested copy of Tabulation Register
verifying roll number of the accused.
Ex. PW4/D1 Authority letter dated 18.01.2019 of this
witness
PW5 Inspector Ex. PW5/A Notice U/S 91 Cr.P.C issued to Secretary,
Sandeep Kumar MCI (Earlier Mark B1)
Ex.PW5/B Notice U/s 91 Cr.P.C issued to Jharkhand
Intermediate Council by SI Sandeep Kumar
Mark X Reply received from Jharkhand
Intermediate Council by SI Sandeep Kumar
Ex.PW5/C Notice U/s 41 A Cr.P.C issued to Accused.
Ex. PW5/D Statement of accused recorded by IO
FIR NO. 89/ 2013
St. Vs. Javed Akhtar
5
PW6 Ms.Satyabha Ex. PW6/A Reply to the application of IO regarding
Kumari verification of 12th Class Marksheet of Javed
Akhtar
5. PW1 Dr. Sanjay Shrivastava, who is the complainant in the present case deposed that in the year 2013, he was posted in Medical Council of India as Secretary and worked there w.e.f 06.06.2012 to 17.04.2014 and again w.e.f 17.09.13 to 20.12.2013. He stated that he wrote a letter i.e. Ex. PW1/A No. MCI 203(12102161)/Regn/159288 dated 14.02.2013 to SHO PS Dwarka Sector 23, to register a case against Mr. Javed Akhtar for submitting forged 10+2 marksheet issued by Jharkhand Intermediate Education Council Ranchi, while he had applied for seeking provisional registration for Indian Nationals having qualified from foreign institution along with documents on 14.05.2012 i.e. Ex. PW1/B(Colly). He further stated that after receiving the same from candidate Javed Akhtar, office of MCI sent a letter to Jharkhand Intermediate Education Council along with the copy of 10+2 Marksheet of Mr. Javed Akhtar having Roll Code9729, Roll NO.10005 i.e. Mark A, vide letter NO. MCI203 (T12102161)/2012/ Regn.117543 dated 16.07.2012 i.e. Mark A1 for the confirmation of authenticity of 10+2 Marksheet submitted by accused Javed Akhtar and in reply to the said letter, Jharkhand Academic Council Ranchi vide it's letter No. JAC/Ver/5287/12./Ranchi dated 27.07.2012 Ex. PW1/C (OSR) replied that Roll Code9729, Roll NO.10005, year 2003(A) of student Javed Akhtar was not allotted. He further stated that after receiving the report regarding the 10+2 marksheet of Mr. Javed Akhtar, from Jharkhand Academic Council, Mr. Javed Akhtar was informed about the FIR NO. 89/ 2013 St. Vs. Javed Akhtar 6 cancellation of provisional registration certificate NO. MCI/12P/28391 dated 06.07.2012 and he was advised to surrender the original provisional certificate issued to him immediately. He further stated that since the candidate Javed Akhtar forged a false document of 10+2 Marksheet of Jharkhand Intermediate Education Council and used the same for cheating MCI, thus, he forwarded the letter to SHO concerned for registration of FIR, pursuant to which present case FIR i.e. Ex. PW1/A was registered against the said candidate Javed Akhtar.
6. Sh. Rajiv Kumar, Assistant Secretary, MCI, Sec8, Dwarka, has been examined as PW2. He deposed that upon receiving notice U/S 91 Cr.P.C. dated 29.04.2016 Mark B1 from IO in MCI office on 02.05.2016, he provided documents as required by IO vide letter NO. MCI203(12102161)/2016 Regn./107829 dated 10.05.2016 Ex. PW2/A. He further stated that the said documents, including copy of 10+2 Marksheet of Javed Akhtar, Copy of MCI Letter dated 16.07.2012 sent to Secretary Jharkhand Intermediate Education Council Ranchi, copy of Verification Report dated 27.07.2012 received from Jharkhand Academic Council, copy of provision registration certificate issued by MCI to Javed Akhtar and original application form along with photocopies of enclosures submitted by Javed Akhtar to MCI for grant of provisional registration are Ex. PW1/B (Colly).
7. PW3 SI Birender deposed that on 25.03.2013, investigation of the present case was marked to him by DO concerned, who handed him over original complaint Ex. PW1/A. He further stated that he visited the MCI office many times FIR NO. 89/ 2013 St. Vs. Javed Akhtar 7 for obtaining the documents and he only received photocopies of documents Mark A1, A and Ex. PW1/C which were verified by MCI and thereafter, he was transferred thus, he handed over the case file to the MHCR on 04.04.2014.
8. PW4 Sh. Eugine Minj, Deputy Secretary, Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi, deposed that in the year 2012, he had received a letter along with the copy of Marksheet of Candidate Javed Akhtar, bearing Roll Code. 9729 and Roll NO. 10005 from MCI for the verification and after verification from their record, it was found that Roll Code. 9729 and Roll NO. 10005 for the examination of year 2003 (Annual) of B.L.N.L Bohra Inter College Rajmahal was not allotted to any candidate and that as per their record (Tabulation Register) only three roll numbers i.e. 10001, 10002 and 10003 were allotted on Roll Code:9729 (Centre) and accordingly, reply Ex. PW1/C was sent to MCI and he also filed the attested copy of tabulation register i.e. Ex. PW4/A.
9. PW5 Inspector Sandeep Kumar, deposed that in the month of December, 2014 further investigation of the present case was marked to him by SHO and during investigation, he issued notice U/S 91 Cr. P.C to Secretary, Medical Council of India i.e. MarkB/EX. PW5/A which was replied by MCI vide Ex. PW2/A. He further stated that along with reply, the documents of the accused including the application form, copy of fake marksheet of class 12th were also supplied and he issued a notice U/S 91 Cr. P.C Ex. PW5/B to Jharkhand Intermediate Council and he received reply Mark X from the said authority stated that Roll NO. 9729 was not issued to accused Javed Akhtar at any point of time.
FIR NO. 89/ 2013St. Vs. Javed Akhtar 8 He further stated that he also issued Notice U/S 41A Cr. P.C i.e. Ex. PW5/C to the accused and accused joined investigation and came to P.S. and statement of accused Ex. PW5/D was recorded whereby accused disclosed that he has never passed class 12th Exam. He further stated that thereafter, he prepared the chargesheet and filed the same before the court.
10. PW6 Ms. Satyabha Kumari, Joint Secretary, Academic Council Ranchi, Jharkhand, deposed that on receipt of an application from the HC Shivdeep Kumar, P.S. Palam Village regarding verification report of 12 th Class Marksheet of one person namely Javed Akhtar, after going through the record i.e. Original Tabulation Register Maintained at the Academic Council of the candidates appeared in Matriculation and Inter Examination, it was found that no Marksheet in the name of Javed Akhtar bearing Roll Code NO. 9729 and Roll NO. 10005 of the year 2003, was ever issued by the Academic Council as no person in the name of Javed Akhtar had ever appeared in the year 2003 for intermediate exams, thus, she filed reply Ex. PW6/A to the concerned officials and the statement sent to her by HC Shivdeep Kumar is Mark A. After examination of this witness, prosecution evidence was closed on 21.07.2023 as all witnesses have been examined by that time and the matter was listed for recording of Statement of accused.
11. Thereafter, statement of the accused U/S 313 Cr.P.C was recorded on 23.08.2023 wherein he controverted and denied the allegations levelled against him and claimed that he qualified 10 +2 exam and thus, marksheet was issued to him. The accused did not opt to lead defence evidence.
FIR NO. 89/ 2013St. Vs. Javed Akhtar 9 FINAL ARGUMENTS
12. Ld. APP for the State has argued that all the prosecution witnesses have supported the prosecution case and their testimony have remained unrebutted and that on the combined reading of the testimony of all the prosecution witnesses, offence U/S 420 & 471 IPC have been proved beyond all reasonable doubt.
13. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for accused has stated that there is no legally sustainable evidence against the accused and that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond all the reasonable doubt, as the original marksheet in question has not been produced on record and further, the prosecution has failed to prove that the same was fake as no witness from the school, from where the accused has passed his 10+2 examination was examined, thus, the defence has pleaded for acquittal of the accused.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
14. Now coming to the merits of the case, the prosecution in order to establish the liability against the accused has to prove that the accused applied to the Medical Council of India for registration and in that process, he submitted fake marksheet of 10+2 and obtained provisional certificate from the MCI. Further, the Prosecution also has to prove that accused had knowledge or reason to believe that the marksheet was not genuine, yet he used it as genuine and the said usage was with dishonest or fraudulent intention to cheat the Medical Council of India.
FIR NO. 89/ 2013St. Vs. Javed Akhtar 10
15. It is not in dispute that Registration certificate, be it provisional or permanent, is a 'property' for the purposes of Section 420 Indian Penal Code. On this point reference is drawn from Ishwarlal Girdharlal Parekh v State Of Maharashtra And Ors, AIR 1969 SC 40. Throughout the trial, the accused has not disputed the fact that the accused applied to MCI for obtaining provisional certificate and it was issued in favour of the accused by MCI and it was received by the accused, however, the accused has disputed his liability by claiming that 10+2 marksheet submitted by him with MCI was not fake.
16. The prosecution in order to prove the charges of cheating and forgery against the accused has primarily relied on the testimony of PW4 Sh. Eugine Minj, Deputy Secretary and PW6 Ms. Satyabha Kumari, Joint Secretary of Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi. Both these witnesses are appearing on behalf of independent body i.e. Jharkhand Intermediate Education Council, Ranchi. PW 4 deposed that in the year 2012, a letter was received in their office along with copy of marksheet bearing Roll Code 9729 with Roll NO. 10005 from MCI for verification of candidate Javed Akhtar, and after verification from their record, tabulation register i.e. Ex. PW4/A, it was found that Roll Code 9729 with Roll NO. 10005 for the examination year 2003 of BLNL Bohra, Inter College Raj Mahal, was not allotted to any candidate and as per their record, only 3 roll numbers i.e. 10001, 10002 & 10003 were allotted on Roll Code 9729. Similarly, PW6 Smt. Satyabha Kumari deposed that upon receiving an application i.e. Mark A from HC Shivdeep regarding verification of 12th Class Marksheet of Javed Akhtar, having FIR NO. 89/ 2013 St. Vs. Javed Akhtar 11 Roll Code 9729 with Roll NO. 10005 of the examination year 2003, she filed reply Ex. PW6/A stating that no such marksheet was ever issued by the Academic Council and as per record, no person in the name of Javed Akhtar had appeared in the year 2003 for intermediate exams.
17. As already discussed above, this fact is not in dispute that the accused Javed Akhtar applied to the MCI and submitted all the documents along with his 10+2 Marksheet to MCI for obtaining the provisional registration certificate. The accused has also not disputed that the provisional certificate was issued by MCI in his favour and he received the same. The only defence taken by accused is that his marksheet was never sent by MCI to Jharkhand Academic Council for verification and that the marksheet was not fake.
18. The defence of the accused that MCI never applied for verification of his document with Jharkhand Academic Council is falsified in view of testimony of PW4 who is Deputy Secretary of Jharkhand Academic Council, who clearly stated that he had received a letter from MCI along with copy of marksheet of one candidate Javed Akhtar for verification. The said fact is also established from the testimony of PW1 Dr. Sanjay Srivastava, the then Secretary MCI and PW2 Sh. Rajeev Kr. Assistant Secretary MCI. PW1 Dr. Sanjay Srivastava, the then Secretary MCI deposed that the application for seeking provisional registrations for Indian Nationals having qualified from Foreign Institutions was submitted by accused Javed Akhtar along with documents Ex. PW1/B (Colly) and his 10+2 marksheet was sent to Jharkhand Academic Council vide letter dated 16.07.2012 FIR NO. 89/ 2013 St. Vs. Javed Akhtar 12 Mark A1, for the authenticity to Jharkhand Academic Council Ranchi, and in reply letter dated 27.01.2012 Ex. PW1/C was received from Jharkhand Academic Council stating that such roll number to student namely Javed Akhtar was not allotted, pursuant to which the accused was advised to surrender his provisional certificate and then this witness wrote letter Ex. PW1/A to SHO PS Dwarka Sector 23, to register a case against Javed Akhtar. Further, PW2 stated that after registration of this FIR, notice U/S 91 Cr.P.C dated 29.04.2016 was received in MCI Office from IO pursuant to which he provided requisite documents to IO vide letter Ex. PW2/A dated 10.05.2016.
19. Thus, in view of uncontroverted testimonies of both PW1, PW2, PW4 and PW6, it stands established that 10+2 marksheet submitted by the accused with MCI was sent to Jharkhand Academic Council and the same was found to be fake. Further, the prosecution has been able to establish that accused applied for provisional registration with MCI by filing documents Ex.PW1/B (Colly) and in the application form filed along with the documents, accused stated himself to have passed his 10+2 from Jharkhand Intermediate Education Council, Ranchi vide roll no.10005 Roll Code 9729. However, upon verification, his 10 +2 marksheet was found to have not been issued by the Jharkhand Academic Council. The said set of documents EX. PW1/B (Colly) along with deposition of PW1, PW2, PW4 and PW6 is sufficient to conclude that prosecution has established that the accused used forged 10 +2 marksheet with the knowledge or reason to be believe the same to be fake and submitted the same to MCI for obtaining provisional certificate and FIR NO. 89/ 2013 St. Vs. Javed Akhtar 13 relying on the said document (i.e. 10+2 marksheet), MCI issued provisional certificate to the accused and it was also received by the accused.
20. Once the prosecution has been able to discharge it's onus and established that the 10 +2 marksheet of the accused was fake, as per Section 103 of the Indian Evidence Act, onus comes upon the accused to prove otherwise i.e. his marksheet was not fake. Further, as per Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act also the accused is required to prove his education qualification as this is a fact which would specially be in knowledge of accused. It is a presumed fact that one is privy to his/her qualification and accused when put in such a situation by the prosecution, ought to have lead the defence evidence to establish that his marksheet was not fake by examination of his teachers or classmates. However, the accused has not lead any defence evidence which further supports the case of the prosecution that 10+2 marksheet of the accused was fake.
21. In the present case, the accused did not put a single question to PW2 in crossexamination and did not even rebut having applied to the MCI. Further, the accused even did not put a single suggestion to PW1 that he never applied to MCI for obtaining provisional certificate or that he did not submit the documents Ex. PW1/B (Colly) to MCI. Thus, the accused not only applied to the MCI for obtaining provisional certificate on the basis of fake 10+2 marksheet, but he also obtained Provisional Registration certificate from the MCI.
22. The prosecution having been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt shifted burden on the accused to prove his innocence and even prove his 10+2 FIR NO. 89/ 2013 St. Vs. Javed Akhtar 14 credentials. The knowledge of the said fact was exclusive to the accused and the burden thus was on him to prove that his 10+2 marksheet was not fake. However, as already discussed above, the accused has failed to prove the same. The accused has also tried to refute his liability by making submission during final arguments that his original marksheet was never produced or seized. However, it has nowhere come on record that the original marksheet of the accused was seized. The marksheet in original, if any, was within the possession of the accused, as neither the MCI nor the Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi retained the original marksheet. It is a judicial noticeable fact that one would possess his own original education credentials. Though the IO ought to have served notice on the accused to produce the original, yet the same does not absolve the accused under Section 106 Evidence Act, to prove a fact within his personal knowledge i.e. his education qualification. Section 66 Evidence Act also casts a duty upon the accused to produce the original. Since the 10+2 marksheet of accused Javed Akhtar is pivotal in this case, and as per Section 66 Proviso (2) of Indian Evidence Act, a duty is casted upon him, to produce the original. However, the accused never produced his original marksheet and though the accused has tried to dispute the fact that his marksheet was not fake by giving suggestion to PW5 that he has not recorded statement of Principal or any school teacher from where the accused has alleged that he has passed his 10+2 Exam, however, there was no requirement on the part of IO to do the same when the concerned officials of Board have clearly certified that no candidate namely Javed Akhtar appeared in the year 2003 intermediate Exam and no Roll NO. 10005 was allotted to any candidate. If the accused has FIR NO. 89/ 2013 St. Vs. Javed Akhtar 15 actually passed the examination from the school, then he could have at least examined any of his batchmates or teacher to establish the fact that he was studying there in that school, however, accused has not examine any such witness, which further strengthens the case of the prosecution that 10+2 marksheet of the accused was fake.
23. From the discussion made above, the accused is proved to have fraudulently induced the MCI to deliver him provisional registration certificate, which if not for the deception of fake marksheet, the MCI would not have delivered. The accused has thus, cheated the MCI by furnishing fake marksheet. Also, the accused had knowledge that the marksheet was fake and yet, he fraudulently and with dishonest intention used the same as genuine.
FINAL ORDER
24. In view of discussion made above, it is clear that the accused had in his possession a marksheet which he knew was not genuine. Accused used this fake marksheet along with application form submitted by him to the Medical Council of India and thereby got Provisional Registration Certificate. The accused has thus, cheated and dishonestly induced the Medical Council of India (an artificial person) so deceived to deliver property i.e. Provisional Registration Certificate. All the ingredients of Section 420 of the Code are thus, fulfilled. Similarly, since the accused knew or at least had reason to believe that the marksheet was forged, yet he fraudulently or dishonestly used the same as genuine and thus, the ingredients FIR NO. 89/ 2013 St. Vs. Javed Akhtar 16 of Section 471 of the Code are also fulfilled. Thus, the accused Javed Akhtar is convicted for offence U/S 420 & 471 IPC.
Announced in Open Court (Aishwarya Sharma)
on this 15th day of February,2023 MM01 South West District, Dwarka,
New Delhi
It is certified that this judgment contains 16 pages and each page bears my signatures.
(Aishwarya Sharma) MM01 South West District, Dwarka, New Delhi FIR NO. 89/ 2013 St. Vs. Javed Akhtar