Delhi District Court
State vs . Rajesh Bansal on 22 July, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. PANKAJ ARORA, MM01, WEST DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURT,
DELHI
STATE Vs. RAJESH BANSAL
FIR No. 178/93
PS: PUNJABI BAGH
U/S: 468/471/474 IPC.
ID No. 02401R0028331994
Date of commission of offence 11.03.1993
Date of institution of the case 01.06.1994
Name of the complainant SI Prakash Chander
Name of accused and address 1) Rajesh Bansal @ Raju S/o Mr. Jagdish
Chand Gupta R/o Sector3, D14, H. No.
183,184, Rohini, Delhi.
2) Mukesh Sharma S/o Tara Chand R/o
Block No. 70/3D Kali Badi, Marg Delhi.
3) Vikas Sharma S/o Kasturi Lal Sharma
R/o NP66, Pritam Pura, Delhi.
4) Sarvesh Kumar @ Pappu S/o Mr. Prem
Sagar R/o B2/318, Raghubir Nagar, Delhi
5) Raj Kumar S/o Devi Singh, R/o H. No.
1189, Multi Storey, Timarpur, Delhi.
6) Ravinder Kumar, S/o Har Bans Lal, BG
3/48D, Paschim Vihar, Delhi.
7) Mohd. Kamaluddin, S/o Mohd. Maskur,
R/o 960/2, Kishanganj, Teli Bada, Azad
Market, Delhi.
Offence complained of or proved U/s 468/471/474 of IPC.
Plea of the accused Plead not guilty
State Vs. Rajesh Bansal & Ors. Page No. 1 of 24
Final order Acquitted
Date of judgment 22.07.2014
J U D G M E N T
1 The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 11.03.1993, a secret information was received regarding selling of illegal Indra Vikas Patra near Riwaz Restaurant, Club Road, Punjabi Bagh. Thereafter, raiding team was found. The accused Sarvesh Kumar (Since PO) was found sitting in motorcycle in front of Riwaz Restaurant. At the instance of the secret informer, accused Sarvesh Kumar was apprehended and 40 Indra Vikas Patra were recovered from his possession. Thereafter, IO prepared the rukka and got the FIR registered. IO recorded the disclosure statement of the accused Sarvesh Kumar. On the basis of his disclosure statement and on his pointing out, coaccused Rajesh Bansal & Mukesh Sharma were arrested at Gora Wala Mandir, Raghubir Nagar. 50 Indra Vikas Patra each were recovered from the possession of Rajesh & Mukesh. Their disclosure statement was recorded. At the instance of accused Rajesh Bansal, accused Raj Kumar & Vikash Sharma were arrested at near Britania Chowk, Ring Road who were sitting in car bearing registration no. DAJ4103. 50 IVP each were recovered from the possession of the accused Raj Kumar & Vikas Sharma. Their disclosure statement was recorded. On the pointing out of already arrested the accused persons, accused Ravinder @ Tony was also arrested. On the pointing out the accused Ravinder, one ply box fitted with two electric holder and bulb with switch & wire, wire with glass and one engraving machine with mark of Chain Chance and six other forged negative of Indira Vikas Patra and plastic documents with respect positive Indira Vikas Patra , and 136 forged Indira Vikas Patra with the seal of Mahim Mumbai and Laxmi Nagar, Delhi at the instance of accused Ravinder from inside his shop. After the completion of necessary formalities, charge sheet has been filed in this court. Cognizance of the offence was taken. The accused persons were summoned. Charge for commission of offence under State Vs. Rajesh Bansal & Ors. Page No. 2 of 24 Section 468/471/474 of IPC was framed, to which the accused persons, did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
As the accused Mukesh Sharma & Sarvesh Kumar @ Pappu have failed to appear in this Court, they were declared PO vide order dated 28.08.1999 & 01.12.2000 respectively. During the pendency of this case, accused Rajesh Bansal & Vikas Sharma have died. Accordingly, proceedings against them stood abated.
2 The prosecution got examined only 13 witnesses in support of its case, which are as follows:
1) Mr. Bharat Bhusan Diani, Sub Post Master was examined as PW1. He deposed that on 25.10.93, he was posted as Asstt. Post Master at Delivery Post Office, Delhi92. He further deposed that he was never dealing with the receipt of cash amount and other formalities regarding issuance of Indira Vikas Patra. He further deposed that he was shown Indra Vikas Patra MOC/12863289 dated 25.10.1991. On seeing the same, the witness states that his initial and signatures are not there on it. He further deposed that the said Indra Vikas Patra did not even bear stamp of his office. He further deposed that the stamps therein is forged one. He further deposed that stamps on Indra Vikas Patra are not similar to the stamps of his post office. He further deposed that the police has obtained, in his presence, specimen of office stamp which is Ex. PW4/A7. He further deposed that police has also obtained his specimen signatures which are Ex. PW4/A3, A4 & A5. In his crossexamination by Ld. Counsel for the accused Rajesh Bansal, he admitted the suggestion that he had never dealt directly with the issuance of Indra Vikas Patra. He further stated that he has only supervisory roll.
2) Mr. C.K. Jain, Senior Scientific Officer, CFSL was examined as PW3. He deposed that he was working as Senior Scientific Officer GradeI in CFSL New Delhi since 1968. He further deposed that he is MSC Chemistry. He further deposed that on 29.03.1993, he visited the Dewan Printing Press at Mauz Pur Delhi at the request of SHO PS Punjabi Bagh and inspected the offset printing machine and it was found to be normal working condition. He further deposed no opinion is offered whether this machine can print Indra Vikas Parta or otherwise as a printing plates used in printing the Vikas State Vs. Rajesh Bansal & Ors. Page No. 3 of 24 Patra have not been forwarded to CFSL for examination and his report is Ex. PW3/A. The witness was not crossexamined despite having given the opportunity.
3) Mr. V.K. Khana, Principal Scientific Officer, CFSL, was examined as PW4. He deposed that he was working on the aforesaid post since July 1996. He further deposed that he has expressed reports in about 2300 cases involving more than one lakh of exhibits of various kinds received from various agencies such as CBI, Delhi Police, Courts etc. He further deposed that these reports, he has given in his carrier span of 26 years as an expert, and attended about 1100 courts as an expert witness in various parts of India.
He further deposed that in this case, certain documents had been submitted for examination by the SHO P.S. Punjabi Bagh Delhi in case FIR No. 178/83 PS Punjabi Bagh, west District Delhi vide memo No. 2092/SHO/P.Bagh Delhi dated 07.10.93. He further deposed that these documents of this case had been examined carefully by him with scientific aids and the following opinion had been arrived at.
He stated as follows: I. "The questioned English signatures marked Q3 is Ex. PW4/A1. On A1 and Q4 on E PW4/A2 could not be connected with the specimen english signatures marked S11 to S13. On Ex. PW4/A3 to PW4/A5 due to the reasons given in detail in my report which is Ex. PW4/A6. Which runs into two pages and bears my signatures on every page at point AA and BB. II. The questioned in Hindi and English rubber seal in impression marked S15 on Ex PW4/A7 Due to the difference in arrangement of the matter as well as the matter in the seal. III. The questioned Hindi and English rubber stamp impression marked Q6 on Ex. PW4/A1 do not tally with the specimen stamp impression marked S14 obtained on Ex PW4/A7. As the stamp impression disagree in arrangement and the matter.
IV. The questioned Hindi and English rubber seal impression marked Q7 on Ex PW4/A1 was not affixed on the seal from which the specimen rubber seal impression marked S16 on Ex State Vs. Rajesh Bansal & Ors. Page No. 4 of 24 PW4/A7 was affixed due to the reason given in detail in my report Ex PW4/A6.The questioned in the end English writing and signatures marked Q1 to Q4 on Ex PW4/A1 and @/A2 had been compared with the specimen Hindi and English writing marked S1 to S10 on Ex PW4/A8 to Ex PW4/A17 and after comparison further standard writing were asked of the person called Ravinder Kumar @ Today @ Babbar". The witness was not crossexamined despite having given opportunity.
4) Mr. Triloki Sagar, SubPostmaster was examined as PW5. He deposed that on 25.10.91, the post of Asst. Sub Post Master might be hold by Sh. Bharat Bhushan Bidani. He further deposed that it could be confirmed by the official record. Mr. Bidani was dealing the Indira Vikas Patra on the said date in supervisory capacity and the name of dealing clerk, he could only tell on seeing the official record. He further deposed that official came in the office of SSP and hand over an application to him and requested in the same for seeing the official record and obtaining some specimens of seal etc. He further deposed that they checked the record of Indira vikas Patra such an issue and stock. He further deposed that the said police official also called Mr. Bidani and obtained specimen signature. He further deposed that they also obtained the specimen impression of the stamp used in issuing the Indira Vikas Patra. Rubber stamp was only put under the initial/signature of the issuing authority. He further deposed that police on the said date did not show any Indira Vikas Patra to him. He further deposed that he never dealt with issuance of IVP however he could say whether the stamps which are encircled as 05 and 06 in the document Ex. PW4/A7 does not bears his signatures however it is in his own handwriting and the impression of stamps encircled as S14, S15 and S16 are of his office. He further deposed that police did not record his statement. During his crossexamination by Ld. Counsel for the accused Rajesh Bansal, he stated that he did not know if any enquiry was conducted by the police from the dealing clerk.
5) Mr. Mohd. Jamal was examined as PW6. He deposed that Shop N. 4, Shyam Gali 1, Mauzpur is taken on rent by him on 1200/ permonth, he installed and printing machine in the said and still the printing work is going on the nature of machine is off set machine. He further deposed that at the time State Vs. Rajesh Bansal & Ors. Page No. 5 of 24 of incident, he and one helper was working in the said shop on the said off set machine. He further deposed that except him and his helper none else worked on the said machine even his brother also not worked upon. He further deposed that he has three brothers including himself, the name of two other are Mohd. Mala and Mohd. Nadeem.
He further deposed that about 1213 years ago, he was carrying his printing press at Shyam Galli no. 1, Shop no. 4. He further deposed that two boys were also working as filter man, inkmen at his press. He further deposed that he was having his office at Bara Hindu Rao. He further deposed that he was working as machine man on his press. He further deposed that he came to know by the police that any documents was printed at his press. He further stated that no such papers were printed at his press. As the witness was resiling from his earlier statement, he was permitted to crossexamine by Ld. APP for the State. However, nothing material came out in his crossexamination which supports the case of prosecution. The witness was not crossexamined despite having given the opportunity.
6) Inspector Babu Lal, SHO Bawna was examined as PW7. He further deposed that on 8.4.93, he was posted as SI Special Staff West Distt. He further deposed that case file number 178/93 was handed over to him for further investigation of the case. He further deposed that he has gone through the file and he discussed with the Inspector Special Staff and ACP West. He further deposed that he was transferred to Paschim Vihar. He further deposed that he handed over the case file to SHO Punjabi Bagh. The witness was not crossexamined despite having given the opportunity.
7) ASI Kewal Singh was examined as PW8. He deposed that on 13.3.93, he was posted at special Staff West Distt. He further deposed that he alongwith SI Prakash Chand, HC Mehar Singh, Ct. Virender, Ct. Shalesh and Jugal Kishore photographer went to Maujpur for investigation of the case FIR No. 178/93. He further deposed that when they reached at Maujpur Chowk where SI Singhara Singh of Ps Seelampur met them. He further deposed that accused Ravinder @ Tony pointed out shop no. 4, Gali No.1 Maujpur and disclosed that he has printed the Indra Vikas Patra from that shop. He further deposed that accused also pointed towards Kamaluddin who printed the same in his press. He further deposed that IO prepared the pointing out memo which is Ex. PW8/A and printing press was sealed State Vs. Rajesh Bansal & Ors. Page No. 6 of 24 with the seal of PC and same was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW8/B. He further deposed that they went to PS Seelampur and they came back to PS Punjabi Bagh. He further deposed that IO got the photographs of the printing machine.
He further deposed that accused Kamaludin was arrested at the instance of accused Ravinder and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW8/C. IO recorded disclosure statement of accused Kamaludin which is Ex. PW8/D. He further deposed that IO also lodged a DD entry on PS Seelampur regarding recovery of heavy printing machine after discussion of senior police officers. He further deposed that the raiding party has also visited several places regarding search of accused Raju but Raju could not be traced. He further deposed that during investigation the raiding party went to Lawrance Road, Gole Market and some other places in search of accused Raju and they went to the spot i.e. Market and some other places in search of accused Raju and thereafter the raiding party came at their respective office Spl. Staff thereafter they went to the spot i.e. Mojpur Shop no. 104, alongwith photographer Jugal Kishore and Jugal Kshore clicked several photographs of Shop No. 104 and articles lying inside the shop and printing machine in his presence. He further deposed after seeing photographs witness correctly identified the same was clicked by photographer Jugal Kishore which is marked A1 to A 15. After completion of investigation from the spot accused Mukesh, Ravinder and Kamaludin were produced before the court as accused Mukesh and Ravinder were already in police remand.
During his crossexamination, he stated that the public persons were gathered outside the said shop. He further stated that DD Entry regarding recovery printing press and arrest of accused persons was not made by the IO in his special presence. He further stated that IO did not prepare site plan of the place where writing machine was lying inside the shop. He further stated that the shop was locked when they left the said shop along with accused and information in this respect was also furnished to local police. He further deposed that he did not keep key of said shop, same was kept by IO. He further deposed that he did not know whether IO had prepared memo regarding keeping key or not.
8) SI Vijender Singh was the duty officer who recorded & identified the present FIR No. 178/93 State Vs. Rajesh Bansal & Ors. Page No. 7 of 24 registered by him which is Ex. PW9/A. During his crossexamination, he stated that there is no endorsement on the rukka. He further stated that endorsement may have been in the already torn portion.
9) Mr. J.D. Kulkarni was examined as PW10. He deposed that in the year 199394, he was posted as Deputy Works Manager, India Security Press, Nasik Road. He further deposed that one letter no. nil, dated 7.10.93 received from the SHO Police Station Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi forwarding therewith 374 India Vikas Patra. As per letter no. 391/SHO/Punjabi Bagh dated 7.3.94 the following six radon samples were examined carefully by him. He further stated that the six random samples were
1. 5IVP/C12 862768 EXP1
2. 5IVP/C12 863002 EXP2
3. 5IVP/C12 863154 EXP3
4. 5IVP/C12 863103 EXP4
5. 5IVP/C12 863053 EXP5
6. 5IVP/C12 863208 EXP6 He further deposed that upon the examination of EXP1 to P6 the same were found forged. He further deposed that his report in this regard is EXPW 10/A running into two pages, bears my signatures at pt. A and B. During his crossexamination, he admitted the suggestion that he has not mentioned anywhere in his report Ex. PW10/A that he received the aforesaid exhibited random samples in a sealed cover. He voluntarily stated that it is not a practice to mention such type of details in the examination report. He admitted the suggestion that Ex. P1 to P6 were received by him in unsealed condition.
10) Mr. D. Ramaraju was examined as PW11. He deposed that he was a retired govt. servant from the Deptt. of Postal and previously during his service he was posted as Asst. Post Master General (Vigilance) Delhi Postal Circle at Meghdoot Bhawan, Panchkuyia Road, New Delhi01. He further deposed that on 13.3.93 when he was posted at above said office and working as on above post, he read a news article which was published in the Times of India Newspaper dated 13.3.93 in respect of State Vs. Rajesh Bansal & Ors. Page No. 8 of 24 information about printing and circulating of fake Indira Vikas Patras. He further deposed that he spoke to the concerned police officials of PS: Punjabi Bagh and also to the ACP concerned and he was informed by them that a case had already been registered under FIR no. 178/93 of PS: Punjabi Bagh in respect of above said incident and he was also informed by that they have arrested 7offenders and also seized the printing press at Mauj Pur and the investigating of the case was in progress. He further deposed that he got prepared one letter addressed to Sh. Deepak Mishra DCP West of New Delhi dated 29.12.93 and was officially sent to him and that day he has seen the photocopy of that letter and that day he has also brought the original of the same before this Hon'ble court and same is Ex. PW 11/A and copy of the same is also marked X and he personally contacted to the IO of this case at PS: Punjabi Bagh and he was interrogated by the police in respect of my above said information mentioned by him in the letter as above. The witness was not crossexamined despite having given the opportunity.
11) ASI A.S. Rohilla was examined as PW12. He deposed that on 11.3.93, he was posted in Special Staff of West District at Taigore Garden as HC. He further deposed that at about 1:15 p.m., when he was present at his office alongwith SI Prakash Chand, HC Karambir, HC Bhajna Ram, Ct. Salesh, Ct. Virender and Ct. Sawalia and at that time one secret informer had come there and informed to Insp. Virender Singh Zoon about the selling of illegal Indira Vikas Patra near Riwaz Restaurant, Punjabi Bagh Club Road. He further deposed that the facts of information were narrated to all of them by said inspector and a raiding party was constituted by said insp. consisting all of us as stated above. We had proceeded towards the said place by a government vehicle DDL 6725(make 407) and within 20 minute we reached at Ring Road near Punjabi Bagh Service Road where SI Prakash Chand and Insp. Zoon had requested 45 persons to join in the investigation but no one agreed and left the place without giving their names and address. He further deposed that no legal notice was given to the public persons who refused to join the investigation. He further deposed that from some distance, from Riwaz Restaurant where one person was found sitting on a motor cycle who was pointed out by the informer and he was apprehended there who disclosed his name Servesh Kumar alias Pappu and the said accused was found with school bag on his right shoulder which was opened and same was found containing 40 State Vs. Rajesh Bansal & Ors. Page No. 9 of 24 Indira Vikas Patra issued from the concerned office at Bombay which were kept into an envelope and was sealed with the seal of PC and were taken into police possession along with said motor cycle no. DL2SF 5127 make Yamha and sent back vide seizure memo Ex. PW12/A. He further deposed that a rukka was prepared and was handed over to Ct. Shailender who got registered this case at PS Punjabi Bagh and had come at the spot with copy of FIR and original rukka and was handed over to SI Prakash Chand. He further deposed that during course of investigation done at the spot the accused Sarvesh alias Pappu was thoroughly interrogated and whatsoever he had disclosed about the said recovered Indira vikas Patra the number of which he did not remember. He further deposed that it were issued by the concerned office of Mahim, Mumbai, the same was reduced into the writing vide disclosure statement of accused Sarvesh is Ex. PW12/B. He further deposed that accused Sarvesh was arrested. He further deposed that his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW12/C. He further deposed that his said disclosure statement was recorded. He further deposed that in pursuance of his disclosure statement they reached at Gorewala Mandir Raghubir Nagar where the other accused Rajesh Bansal (identity not disputed by Ld. defence counsel) Mukesh Sharma were also apprehended while they were going on their motor cycle. He further deposed that during their superficial search (I do not exactly remember that who was apprehended by whom) conducted by SI Prakash Chand, 50 Indira Vikas Patra were got recovered from one of them (total 100) and the same were kept separately into envelope and were sealed with the seal of PC and were taken into police possession along with their motor cycle no. DL2S D remaining number he did not remember vide seizure memo Ex. PW12/D. He further deposed that accused Mukesh Sharma is also not present before this court, however he could identify him if shown to him. He further deposed that he could not say the Indira Vikas Parta which were recovered from the possession of accused Mukesh Sharma were issued from which office and the Indira Vikas Patra which were recovered by accused Rajesh Bansal were also taken separately into police possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW12/E. He further deposed that after taking the said recovered Indra Vikas Patra into police possession, the accused Rajesh Bansal and Mukesh Sharma were arrested in this case. He further deposed that at State Vs. Rajesh Bansal & Ors. Page No. 10 of 24 their personal search were conducted by IO/SI Prakash Chand in his presence vide memo Ex. PW 12/F and Ex. PW 12/G as witness and were thoroughly interrogated and whatsoever they had disclosed about the said recovered Indira Vikas Patra and the same was reduced into writing vide their disclosure statement Ex. PW 12/H and Ex. PW 12/I which he also signed at point X as witness. He further deposed that in the pursuance of their disclosure statements of accused Survesh, Rajesh and Bansal and Mukesh Sharma were taken at Near Traffic Signal Line, Britania Chowk, where one Maruti Car having the registration No. DAJ4103 had come, in which the other accused persons namely Raj Kumar and Vikas Sharma were apprehended at the pointing out of said accused Rajesh Bansal and during their superficial search conducted by SI Prakash Chand, the 50 Indira Vikas Patra were also got recovered from one of them (Total 100) which were also kept into separate envelop and were sealed with the seal of PC and were taken into police possession vide seizure memo in respect of accused Raj Kumar is Ex. PW 12/J and the other seizure memo of said recovered Indira Vikas Patra from the possession of the accused Vikash Sharma @ Pitu is Ex. PW 12/k which he also signed as witness at point X and the accused Raj Kumar and Vikas Sharma were also arrested in this case and their personal search were conducted by IO vide memo Ex. PW 12/L and Ex. PW 12/M and they were also thoroughly interrogated about the incident in question and also about the recovery of said Indira Vikas Patra. He further deposed that there upon their separate disclosure statements were also recorded by the IO in his presence vide disclosure statement of accused Raj Kumar, the other their associate Ravinder Kumar @ Toni @ Babar was apprehended while he was standing there and his personal search was also conducted vide memo Ex. PW12/P and he was also thoroughly interrogated and his disclosure statement Ex. PW 12/Q which he signed at point X as witness and accused Ravinder present today in this court correctly identified was taken at a shop No. A2 DSIDC, Raghubir Nagar where one ply box with fitted to electric holder and bulb with switch and wire with the glass, and where one number engraving machine, six negatives of Indira Vikas Patra, three positives of Indira Vikas Patara, 125 Indira Vikas Patara were recovered at the instance of accused Ravinder Kumar and the said articles and documents were separately sealed in the separately sealed in the separate parcels and were and were State Vs. Rajesh Bansal & Ors. Page No. 11 of 24 sealed with the seal of PC vide seizure memo Ex. PW 12/R which he also signed as witness at point X and the said arrested accused persons and the case property was handed over to MHC(M) and accused were brought at Special Staff Office, Tagore Garden for their joint interrogation. The witness has correctly identified the case property. During his crossexamination, he admitted the suggestion that Inspector Virender Singh was incharge of the raiding party. He stated that he did not remember whether accused Vikash had disclosed the name of Raju of Lawrance Road as coaccused in his disclosure statement or not. He admitted suggestion he was working under Inspector Virender Singh Joon at the relevant time. He stated that IO recorded statement of all the witnesses at PS and not at the spot. He further stated that Inspector Virender Singh Joon also present there. He admitted the suggestion that the secret informer had delivered the information to Inspector Virender Singh Joon.
12) Retd. SI Parkash Chander was examined as PW13. He deposed on 11.3.93, he was posted in Spl. Staff west District at Tagore Garden as a SI. He further deposed that he was present in the office of Spl. Staff alongwith Inspector Virender Singh Joon. He further deposed that at about 1:00 P.M. a secret informer came in the special staff office and informed them about selling of illegal Indira Vikas Patra near Riwaz Restaurant, Punjabi Bagh Club Road and he also informed them that accused would come at said restaurant at about 1:30 P.M. He further deposed that he made DD No.6 which is Ex. PW13/A regarding said secret information in DD diary of special staff. He further deposed that he formed a raiding party including HC Karambir Singh, HC Attar Singh, HC Bhajna Ram, Ct. Sailash Kumar, Ct. Ravinder Kumar, Ct. Sawalia Singh in the supervision of Inspector Virender Singh Joon after narrating information to the members of raiding party. He further deposed that he left the officer alongwith members of raiding party by government vehicle bearing No. DDL 6725 being driven by driver Rajbir Singh towards Riwaz Restaurant, Club Road, Punjabi Bagh. He further deposed that when raiding party reached at nooker near Ring Road Club Road he requested 45 passersby to join the raiding party but none agreed and they refused to joining the raiding party and left the spot after disclosing their genuine problem without disclosing their name and addresses. He further deposed that they proceeded towards Riwaz Restaurant and Parked out government vehicle on service road, State Vs. Rajesh Bansal & Ors. Page No. 12 of 24 thereafter they reached at Riwaz Restaurant with precaution and overpowered accused Sarvesh (Since PO) who was sitting on a motorcycle in front of Riwaz Restaurant at the pointing out of secret informer. Accused Sarvesh was also having a school bag and same was carrying on his left arm. He further deposed that they checked the said bag and recovered 40 Indira Vikas Patra form the possession of accused. Accused Servesh was interrogated by me and he told that said Indira Vikas Patra are forged and fabricated. He further deposed that said recovered Indira Vikas Patra were bearing seal of Sub Post Master Mahim, Mumbai and signed with the red ink and issued on 25.10.1991 and date of maturity was 25.10.1996. He further deposed that he wrapped said recovered forged Indira Vikas Patra in a white colour cloth and prepared pulanda which was duly sealed by him with the seal of PC. He further deposed that he took m/cycle of accused make Yama bearing registration No. DL 2 SM 5127 and recovered Indira Vikas Patra and school type bag in police possession vide seizure memo which is already Ex. PW 12/A. He further deposed that he prepared a rukka which is Ex. PW 13/B and handedover to Ct. Sailesh Kumar for registration of FIR at about 2:30 P.M. He further deposed that Ct. Sailesh proceeded towards Punjabi Bagh for registration of FIR. In between, I prepared site plan which is Ex. PW 13/C. He further deposed that he thoroughly interrogated accused Sarvesh Kumar. He further deposed that Ct. Salesh Kumar returned back at the spot alongwith copy of FIR and original rukka and same was handed over to him. He further deposed that he arrested accused and his personal search memo was carried out vide personal search memo which is already Ex. PW 12/C bearing my signature at point B. He further deposed that he recorded disclosure statement of accused Sarvesh Kumar during interrogation which is already Ex. PW12/D bearing my signature at point B in which he disclosed regarding source of recovered forged and fabricated Indira Vikas Patra. He further deposed that raiding party reached at Gorawala Mandir, Raghbir Nagar alongwith accused Sarvesh Kumar in pursuance of his disclosure statement. He further deposed that then they parked their vehicle secretly and started waiting for co accused Rajesh Bansal and Mukesh Sharma. He further deposed that they saw both accused Rajesh Bansal and Mukesh Sharma were coming on a motorcycle and same was being riding by Accused Rajesh Bansal. He further deposed that as soon as they parked motorcycle they State Vs. Rajesh Bansal & Ors. Page No. 13 of 24 overpowered both accused at the pointing out of accused Sarvesh. He further deposed that they noticed that Rajesh Bansal was having some documents kept in a polythene in his right hand and Vikash Sharma was also having some documents in a khaki colour envelop. He further deposed that they recovered those documents from the possession of accused persons and found 50 Indira Vikas Patra of same type (which were already recovered from the possession of accused Sarvesh) was recovered from the possession of accused Rajesh and more 50 forged Indira Vikas Patra were also recovered from the possession of accused Mukesh Sharma. He further deposed that he wrapped recovered Indira Vikas Patra in white colour cloth separately and prepared two pullandas duly sealed with the seal of PC. He further deposed that after use seal was also handed over to HC Attar Singh. He further deposed that he took recovered 100 forged Indira Vikas Patra in police possession vide respective seizure memos which are already Ex. PW12/D and PW12/E both bearing my signature at point B, separately. He further deposed that he arrested both accused Rajesh Bansal and Mukesh Sharma and their personal search were conducted vide respective personal search memo already Ex. PW 12/F and Ex. PW 12/G. He further deposed that he thoroughly interrogated both the accused persons regarding source of forged and fabricated recovered Indira Vikas Patra and same was reduced in writing vide their disclosure statements respectively vide memo already Ex. PW 12/H and PW 12/I. He further deposed that raiding party reached at Britania Chowk Ring Road along with all 3 accused persons in pursuance of disclosure statement of accused Rajesh Bansal. He further deposed that where they parked their vehicle secretly and started waiting, when traffic signal became green one white colour car bearing reg. no. DAJ 4103 got stopped on the road which was going towards Punjabi Bagh after crossing traffic signal. He further deposed that on the pointing out of Rajesh Bansal we overpowered accused Raj Kumar who was sitting on driver seat inside the said car and also overpowered accused Vikas Sharma, (already expired) who was sitting adjoining seat of accused Raj Kumar inside the said car. He further deposed that fifty forged Indira Vikas Patra of same type were recovered from the right hand of accused Raj Kumar and more 50 forged Indira Vikas Patra of same type were recovered from right hand of accused Vikas Sharma. He further deposed that he prepared two separate pullanda after wrapping recovered forged Indira Vikas State Vs. Rajesh Bansal & Ors. Page No. 14 of 24 Patra respectively and same were duly sealed with the seal of PC. He further deposed that after use seal was handed over to HC Attar Singh. He further deposed that he took both pulandas in police possession vide respective seizure memo which are already Ex. PW12/J and PW 12/K. He further deposed that he arrested both accused persons and their personal search were carried out vide their respective personal search memo already Ex. PW 12/L and 12/M. He further deposed that he also recorded disclosure statement of both accused persons vide respective disclosure memo which are already Ex. PW 12/N and 12/O both bearing my signature at point B in which they were disclosed regarding forged and fabricated Indira Vikas Patra. He further deposed that raiding party reached at DSIDC Raghubir Nagar alongwith all 5 accused persons and case property in pursuance of disclosure statement of accused Raj Kumar, where we apprehended accuse Ravinder @ Tony at the pointing out of accused Raj Kumar. After interrogation accused Ravinder was arrested and his personal search was conducted vide personal search memo already Ex. PW12/P bearing my signature at point B. He further deposed that during interrogation accused Ravinder disclosed that he is running a shop at P12, DSIDC Raghbir Nagar for printing forged and fabricated Indira Vikas Patra. He further deposed that he recorded disclosure statement of accused Ravinder vide memo already Ex. 12/Q bearing my signature at point B. He further deposed that they reached at the shop of accused Ravinder and entered inside his shop and on his pointing out memo and recovered one ply box with fitted two electric holder and bulb with switch and wire with the glass and one engraving machine with the mark of Chain Chance and six other forged negative of Indira Vikas Patra and three plastic documents with respect positive Indira Vikas Patra and 136 forged Indira Vikas Patra with the seal of Mahim Mumbai and Laxmi Nagar, Delhi at the instance of accused Ravinder from inside his shop. Forged Indira Vikas Patra were bearing date of issuing 25.10.1991 and date of maturity 25.10.96. He further deposed that he took out 2 forged Indira Vikas Patra which were issued Mahim Mumbai and Laxmi Nagar Delhi out of 136 forged Indira Vikas Patra and same was place on record. He further deposed that he prepared pullanda in respect of recovered forged and fabricated Indira Vikas Patra and same were duly sealed with the seal of PC and he also given Mark 2 to 5 to recovered forged Indira Vikas Patra. He further deposed that he took entire case State Vs. Rajesh Bansal & Ors. Page No. 15 of 24 property in police possession vide seizure memo already Ex. PW12/R. After seeing both Indira Vikas patra available on record with Ex. PW4/A2 and PW4/A1 and issued by Mahim Mumbai and Laxmi Nagar Delhi, witness correctly identified the same were taken by him out of 136 forged Indira Vikas Patra which were recovered from the possession of accused persons. He further deposed that he reached at PS Punjabi Bagh alongwith all accused persons and entire case property and also with raiding party and case properties were deposited in malkhana PS Punjabi Bagh. He further deposed that he reached at office of Special Staff Tagore Garden alongwith accused persons and made inquiry from accused persons regarding selling of forged Indira Vikas Patra.
He further deposed that on 12.3.93 accused persons were produced before Hon'ble Court and got one day police remand of accused Rajesh Bansal and Mukesh Sharma by order of Hon'ble Court. He further deposed that he returned back at PS Rajouri Garden and both accused persons were locked inside the lock up of PS. He further deposed that on 12.3.1993, he had taken specimen signature of accused Ravinder Babbar @ Toni. He further deposed that he also got PC remand of accused Ravinder Babbar @ Toni and Mukesh Sharma on 12.3.1993. He further deposed that he had stated in his previous statement that he had taken PC remand of Rajeh Bansal, inadvertently.
He further deposed that on 13.03.1993, he alongwith police staff and accused Ravinder and Mukesh Sharma went to the PS Seelam Pur by Govt. Vehicle. He further deposed that he sought help of local police from SHO, Seelam Pur and ind the pursuance of the same SI Singhada Singh from PS Seelam Pur joined in the investigation at Ghonda Chowk. He further deposed that then was reached at shop of accused Kamaluddin and on the instance of accused Ravinder @ Tony they overpowered accused Kamaluddin as accused Ravinder @ Tony told them that the said printing machine which is installed in the shop of Kamaluddin was used for printing forged IVP in questions. He further deposed that photographs of said printing machine was also got clicked by photographer Jugal Kishore as he was participating in the investigation. After seeing, 15 photographs of said printing machines which was installed in the shop of accused Kamaluddin, witness correctly identified the same were got clicked State Vs. Rajesh Bansal & Ors. Page No. 16 of 24 by photographer Jugal Kishore on the direction of witness. He further deposed that same are already marked as A1 to A15. He further deposed that he could not bring said printing machine to the PS as the same was too heavy in weight and not possible to carry somewhere therefore, after discussion of Inspector Special Staff he sealed said printing machine at the shop of accused Kamaluddin with the seal of PC. He further deposed that he returned back at PS Seelam Pur alongwith accused Ravinder @ Toni, Mukesh Sharma and Kamaluddin. He further deposed that he also made DD entry in PS Seelam Pur regarding sealing of printing machine at the shop of accused Kamaluddin. He further deposed that accused Ravinder Babbar @ Tony, Mukesh Sharma wa sent to J.C. And brought accused Kamaludding at the office of Special Staff and accused Kamaluddin sent to police lock up PS Rajouri Garden after interrogation. He further deposed that he also recorded disclosure statement of accused Kamaluddin already Ex. 8/B. He further deposed that he also prepared seizure memo regarding sealing to the press machine from the shop of accused Kamaluddin at the instance of accused Ravinder @ Tony which is already Ex. PW8/B. He further deposed that he also took ownership proof of said printing machine from father accused namely Mohd. Jamal and same were seized vide seizure memo which is Ex. PW13/x1. After seeing, receipt which is already on record, witness correctly identified by the same was given by Mohd. Jamal and seized vide Ex. PW13/x1. He further deposed that personal search of accused Kamaluddin was carried out as per personal search memo which already Ex. PW8/C. He further deposed that on 21.3.1993, he got transferred from special staff and case file handed over to Reader of Special Staff. He further deposed that he could identify said ply box which was recovered from the possession of accused Ravinder @ Tony from his shop situated at P12,DSIDC, Raghubir Nagar, Delhi.
During his crossexamination, he stated that he had not served any notice to the passerby who refused to join the raiding party/investigation. He further stated that he had not made any inventory in respect of the said material. He further stated that he handed over the seal to HC attar Singh after seizure of case property from accused Sarvesh Kumar. He further stated that he did not prepare any handling over memo of the same. He further stated that he made DD entry in respect of his arrival. He State Vs. Rajesh Bansal & Ors. Page No. 17 of 24 further stated that the same is not on record. He further stated that accused Mukesh Sharma disclosed that he could help him to arrest Raju of Lawrence Road. He further stated that he had not filed any application with the court concerned to obtain the order to arrest Raju of Lawrence Road as the address of Raju of Lawrence Road was not traceable. He further stated that he made DD Entry in respect of arrest of accused Kamaluddin and seizure of case property at PS Seelampur. He further stated that the said DD Entry is not on judicial record. He further stated that he did not remember who paid the payment to the photographer concerned. He further stated that he did not collect the negatives of photographs as he got transferred. He further stated that inspector Virender Singh was the head of raiding party. He further stated that again said the raid was conducted under his supervision. He further stated that on 13.03.1993, he visited PS Seelampur at about 12.50 p.m. and thereafter, again visited at about 2.15 p.m. He further stated that at the first time when he visited PS Seelampur, he did not make any DD Entry. He further stated that when he visited PS Seelampur again at about 2.15 p.m. He further stated that he made DD Entry. He further stated that he did not remember whether he had placed copy of said DD entry on record or not.
13) Mr. M.D. Meena, ACP was examined as PW14. He deposed that on 27.7.93, he was posted at PS P. Bagh as SI. He further deposed that case file of present case FIR was handed over to him on the direction of concerned SHO for further investigation as an IO. He further deposed that during investigation, he had examined Subpostmaster Laxmi Nagar Post Office namely Bharat Bhushan and Triloki Sagar U/s 161 Cr. PC. He further deposed that they stated that no such Indra Vikas Patra were issued by this post office on dated 25.10.91 as per record. He further deposed that the stamps are forged in nature which are on the said Indira Vikas Patra and neither same are bearing our signatures. He further deposed that after seeing Indra Vikas Patra in question they also told him that it is not possible that Indira Vikas Patra in question were issued by two authorities in same date in same initial ad same stamp. He further deposed that he sent specimen signature and handwriting of accused Ravinder to CFSL, Lodhi Road alongwith two forge Indira Vikas Patra. He further deposed that he also sent 374 forge Indira Vikas Patra alongwith 6 negatives (which were recovered from the possession of accused State Vs. Rajesh Bansal & Ors. Page No. 18 of 24 persons) to Nasik Security Printing Press through Ct. Ramji Rai as Sub postmaster reported him that only Nasik Security Printing Press is authorized to prepare and issue Indira Vikas Patra in entire India. He further deposed that the official of Nasik Security Printing Press kept 6 forged Indira Vikas Patra out of 374 forged Indira Vikas Patra for verification of genuineness of questioned Indira Vikas Patra and remaining Indira Vikas Patra along with 6 negatives returned to Ct. Ramji Rai Ct. Ramji Rai deposited remaining forged Indira Vikas Patra alongwith 6 negatives in the Maal Khana of PS P. Bagh vide DD No. 34B on dt. 17.03.94. He further deposed that he also set request letters to Nasik Security Press as well as CFSL, Lodhi Road for providing results but results could not be provided by the above said authority in due time, therefore, he prepared Challan and filed before the court. During his cross examination, he stated that he has not broken the seal of six pullandas having 374 forged Indra Vikas Patra and it might be broken by the expert Nasik Printing Press as the same was sent for expert opinion. 3 Thereafter, statement of accused Kamaluddin U/s 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein all+ the incriminating evidence were put to the accused. He stated that he was innocent. He further stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further stated that neither printing press machine nor any forged Indra Vikas Patra were recovered from his possession. Accused opted not to lead the DE.
Thereafter, statement of accused Ravinder Babbar U/s 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein all the incriminating evidence were put to the accused. He stated that he did the work of gold smith at Paharganj. He further stated that some police official came to his shop to know about the residence of Raju of Lawrance Road who was untraceable and used to come to his shop to purchase gold jewelery. He further stated that he showed ignorance about the resident of said Raju of Lawrence Road and on the said conduct of mine he was falsely implicated by police official in present case and there was no recovery from him. He further stated that he has no shed in DSIDC Raghubir Nagar and no recovery was made at his instance at any place . Accused opted not to lead the DE.
Thereafter, statement of accused Raj Kumar U/s 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein all the incriminating evidence were put to the accused. He stated that he was called by the then ACP of the State Vs. Rajesh Bansal & Ors. Page No. 19 of 24 Cell at his house landline no. 7212411 & informed him to recover a car bearing no. DAJ 4103 unclaimed and the persons available informed him about his telephone no. as the owner of vehicle. He further stated that he went over there and informed him and he was not the owner of the vehicle but he insisted to claim ownership without any reason and on such facts some hot words were exchanged bertween him and him & under his order SI Prakash Chand took him in custody. He further stated that he pacified him that he was a government servant and he has no connection with the said vehicle but they were adamant and falsely implicated him in the present case without any evidence. He further deposed that he was falsely implicated due to aforesaid reason. Accused opted not to lead the DE.
4. This court has heard the arguments and perused the record.
It is pertinent to mention here that it has been held in case of Sadhu Singh V/s State of Punjab 1997(3) Crime 55 the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court : "In a criminal trial, it is for the prosecution to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from may have to must have. If the prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks credibility the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused."
As per chapter 22 rule 49 of the Punjab Police Rules it is necessary to record DD Entry of arrival and departure of the police official. Chapter 22 Rule 49 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934, is reproduced as under: ''22.49 Matters to be entered in Register No. II The following matters shall, amongst others, be entered :
(c) The hour of arrival and departure on duty at or from a police station of all enrolled police officers of whatever rank, whether posted at the police station or elsewhere, with a statement of the nature of their duty. This entry shall be made immediately on arrival or prior to the departure of the officer concerned and shall be attested by the latter personally by signature or seal.
Note : The term Police Station will include all places such as Police Lines and Police Posts where Register No. II is maintained.
In the present case, the above said provision appears to have not been complied with by prosecution. The relevant entries regarding the arrival and departure of the police official has neither State Vs. Rajesh Bansal & Ors. Page No. 20 of 24 been brought on record nor proved on record as the DD Writer was not examined and no plausible explanation is given as to why DD Writer was not made the witness in the present case. At this juncture, it would be relevant to refer to a case law reported as Rattan Lal V/s State, 1987 (2) Crimes 29 the Hon'ble Delhi High Court "wherein it has been observed that if the investigating agency deliberately ignores to comply with the provisions of the Act the courts will have to approach their action with reservations. The matter has to be viewed with suspicion if the provisions of law are not strictly complied with and the least that can be said is that it is so done with an oblique motive. This failure to bring on record, the DD entries creates a reasonable doubt in the prosecution version and attributes oblique motive on the part of the prosecution." In the present case, the above said provision appears to have not been complied with by prosecution.
In a case law reported as Anoop Joshi V/s State, 1992 (2) C.C. Cases 314 (HC), Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has observed as under:
''18. It is repeatedly laid down by this Court that in such cases it should be shown by the police that sincere efforts have been made to join independent witnesses. In the present case, it is evident that no such sincere efforts have been made, particularly when we find that shops were open and one or two shopkeepers could have been persuaded to join the raiding party to witness the recovery being made from the appellant. In case any of the shopkeepers had declined to join the raiding party, the police could have later on taken legal action against such shopkeepers because they could not have escaped the rigours of law while declining to perform their legal duty to assist the police in investigation as a citizen, which is an offence under the IPC''. In Roop Chand V/s The State of Haryana,1999 (1) C.L.R 69, the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court held as under: "It is well settled principle of the law that the Investigating Agency should join independent witnesses at the time of recovery of contraband articles, if they are available and their failure to do so in such a situation casts a shadow of doubt on the prosecution case. In the present case also admittedly the independent witnesses were available at the time of recovery but they refused to associate themselves in the investigation. This explanation does not inspire confidence because the police officials who are the State Vs. Rajesh Bansal & Ors. Page No. 21 of 24 only witnesses examined in the case have not given the names and addresses of the persons contacted to join. It is a very common excuse that the witnesses from the public refused to join the investigation. A police officer conducting investigation of a crime is entitled to ask anybody to join the investigation and on refusal by a person from the public the Investigating Officer can take action against such a person under the law. Had it been a fact that he witnesses from the public had refused to to join the investigation, the Investigating Officer must have proceeded against them under the relevant provisions of law. The failure to do so by the police officer is suggestive of the fact that the explanation for non joining the witnesses from the public is an after thought and is not worthy of credence. All these facts taken together make the prosecution case highly doubtful''.
5 It has come on record that the prosecution has recovered the engraving machine of the printing press from which the alleged forged Indira Vikas Patra were printed. No plausible explanation has been given as to why the said engraving machine was not sent to CFSL/India Securities Printing Press, Nasik. No plausible explanation has been given as to why the printing plates used in printing of said Indira Vikas Patra (as deposed by PW3 Sh. C K Jain, Senior Scientific Officer, CFSL) have not been sent to CFSL for examination. From the testimony of PW1 Sh. Bharat Bhushan Bindani and PW10 Sh.
J D Kulkarni, prosecution has been able to establish that the recovered Indira Vikas Patra are forged one. However, it is doubtful if the recovered Indira Vikas Patra are the same which were sent to India Securities Press, Nasik as PW10 Sh. J D Kulkarni has categorically stated in his cross examination that the samples which were received by him were not in sealed condition.
As per the judgment of the Honble High Court of Delhi titled as Radha Krishan Vs. State, 2000 CriLJ 4090 wherein interalia it was observed that "It is the normal procedure that when the incriminating articles are seized and are required to be sent to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory those articles are immediately sealed and deposited in Malkhana at the Police Station till they are taken out and sent to the Laboratory. In the instant case this was not done. Contemporaneously with seizure and sealing of such articles, impression of seal used on sealed articles is put on a form, commonly called, the CFSL form. This is so done because at the time of analysis of sealed packets in laboratory, State Vs. Rajesh Bansal & Ors. Page No. 22 of 24 the analyst concerned is able to tally seal impressions on sealed packets with those appearing on the CFSL form in order to rule out any possibility of tempering of seals on sealed packets after seizure anywhere or in transit till receipt in laboratory. The important of the CFSL form thus cannot be over emphasized because this document provides a valuable safeguard to an accused to ensure that no tampering has been done during intervening period. The CFSL form is a document or forwarding note accompanying a sample sent by the Police to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Such a form contains the nature of crime, list of samples being sent for examination, nature of examination required and specimen of the seal/seals affixed on the exhibit besides particulars of the Case/Police Station. 6 It has also come on record that Inspector V S Zoon was also involved in the investigation of the present case. Same is apparent from the testimony of PW12 ASI A S Rohilla and PW13 Retd. SI Parkash Chander. No plausible explanation has been given as to why Inspector V S Zoon was not made a witness in the present case. PW13 Retd. SI Parkash Chander has stated in his examination in chief before this court that raiding team was formed in the supervision of Insp. V S Joon. It is pertinent to note that no public person who actually has been cheated by purchasing those forged Indira Vikas Patra has been got examined by the prosecution.
At this stage it is pertinent to mention the recent case of "Govindaraju @ Govinda vs State By Sri ramapuram P.S. & Anr 2012 AIR (SC) 1292" referring to the case of Takhaji Hiraji v. Thakore Ku bersing Chamansing and Ors. [(2001) 6 SCC 145] , the Hon'ble Supreme court of india held as under: "19. So is the case with the criticism levelled by the High Court on the prosecution case finding fault therewith for nonexamination of independent witnesses. It is true that if a material witness, who would unfold the genesis of the incident or an essential part of the prosecution case, not convincingly brought to fore otherwise, or where there is a gap or infirmity in the prosecution case which could have been supplied or made good by examining a witness who though available is not examined, the prosecution case can be termed as suffering from a deficiency and withholding of such a material witness would oblige the court to draw an adverse inference against the prosecution by holding that if the witness would have been examined it would not have supported the prosecution case." State Vs. Rajesh Bansal & Ors. Page No. 23 of 24 7 It is well settled that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, on the basis of the material available on the record, the case of the prosecution becomes doubtful and the benefit of doubt certainly goes in favor of the accused. The prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the accused. Accordingly, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, accused namely Mohd. Kamaluddin, Ravinder & Raj Kumar are hereby acquitted for the commission of offence punishable U/s 468/471/474 of IPC.
Announced in the open Court, On 22nd, July, 2014.
(Pankaj Arora) MM01 (West)/Delhi 22.07.2014 State Vs. Rajesh Bansal & Ors. Page No. 24 of 24 FIR NO. 178/93 PS: P. Bagh 22.07.2014 Present: Ld. APP for the State.
Accused namely Mohd. Kamaluddin, Ravinder & Raj Kumar in person.
Vide separate judgment dictated in the open court, the accused namely Mohd. Kamaluddin, Ravinder & Raj Kumar are hereby acquitted for the commission of offence under Section U/s 468/471/474 of IPC.
Put up for furnishing the bail bond U/s 437A of Cr.P.C. by the accused namely Mohd. Kamaluddin, Ravinder & Raj Kumar on 30.07.2014 (Pankaj Arora) MM01,West, THC, Delhi 22.07.2014 State Vs. Rajesh Bansal & Ors. Page No. 25 of 24