Delhi District Court
State vs Vijender on 1 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST
CLASS-08 (CENTRAL), TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
PRESIDING OFFICER: MS. SAYESHA CHADHA, DJS
FIR No. 73/2004
PS Kamla Market
U/s 380/419/420/468/471 IPC
State vs. Vijender Kumar @
Sunil Narang
Date of Institution of case: 09.01.2008
Date when Judgment reserved: 31.05.2025
Date on which Judgment pronounced: 01.07.2025
JUDGMENT
A. Case No. : 297316/2016
B. Date of Institution of Case : 09.01.2008
C. Date of Commission of Offence : Year 2003 / 2004
D. Name of the complainant : Sh. H R Kamath
E. Name of the Accused : Vijender Kumar @ Sunil
& his parentage and residence Narang, S/o Sh Raghunandan,
R/o N-2, Top Floor, Right
Side, Kalkaji, Delhi.
F. Offences complained of : U/s 380/419/420/468/471
Indian Penal Code
G. Plea of the Accused : Pleaded not guilty
H. Final order : Acquittal
I. Date of such order : 01.07.2025
Brief statement of reasons for decision of the case:
State Vs. Vijender Kumar @ Sunil Narang FIR No. 73/2004 PS Kamla Market 1/30
1. The case of prosecution in brief is that in the year 2003/2004 at Syndicate Bnak, Asaf Ali Road, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Kamla Market, accused opened two bank accounts in the name of Sunil Narang in HDFC Bank and ICICI Bank by using forged Pan card and forged driving license and stole drafts from the counter Syndicate Bank and tampered and converted therm in favour of Sunil Narang and thereafter, presented them in the fake bank account opened by accused in the name Sunil Narang for clearance and got one draft no.629529 amounting to Rs.503560/- cleared and withdrew the said amount and thereby committing an offence punishable u/s 380/419/420/468/471 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter called as IPC).
2. Upon conclusion of investigation, a final report was filed before the court on 09.01.2008 against the accused. Cognizance of offence punishable was taken. Upon summoning, the accused appeared and copies of charge sheet were supplied to the accused persons in compliance of Section 207 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter called as Cr.P.C). Thereafter, charge for offence punishable u/s 380/419/420/468/471 IPC was framed against all the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and opted for trial.
3. Thereafter, the prosecution was given the opportunity to substantiate the allegations against the accused. The prosecution examined 21 (Twenty One) witnesses in support of its case:
4. PW-1 Retired SI Bhupender Kaur has deposed in his examination-in-chief that on 28.02.2004, she was posted at PS Kamla Market as Duty Officer / SI from 8.00 am to 4.00 pm. She received State Vs. Vijender Kumar @ Sunil Narang FIR No. 73/2004 PS Kamla Market 2/30 rukka handed over by SI Inderpal Singh at about 11.46 am, on the basis of which she registered FIR No. 73/04 Ex.PW1/A and made endorsement Ex.PW1/B upon rukka and he handed over a copy of FIR and original rukka to SI Inderpal Singh.
5. PW-2 H Rahman has deposed in his examination-in-chief that on 26.02.2004, he lodged complaint Ex.PW2/A on the basis of reported loss of eight cheques deposited by their customer i.e., M/s Uni Agencies (Chemicals) Pvt. Ltd. The said company reported that eight cheques were deposited by them in the said branch of Syndicate bank. He had mentioned the details of the abovesaid eight cheques in his complaint. The said cheques were deposited on 23.02.2004. The said company also reported that out of the above said eight cheques, one cheque of an amount of Rs.5 lacs was paid by bank of Rajasthan. The said cheque amounting of Rs.5 lacs was deposited in the account of one Mr. Sunil Narang of HDFC Bank, probably Defence Colony Branch. In respect of remaining seven cheques we stopped the payment as per the request of the said company. He further deposed that on the basis of his complaint, the present FIR was registered. IO made inquiry from him. He asked about some queries through a letter dated 28.02.2004. He replied and furnished the said query vide Ex.PW2/B alongwith account statement of account no. 90001250000124 Ex.PW2/C of UNI Agency (Chemicals) Pvt. Ltd. from period 20.02.2004 to 27.02.2004.
6. During cross-examination of the witness by Ld. Counsel for the accused, PW-2 admitted that he had performed his duty honestly. He also admitted that during his tenure the administration of his bank was proper. He also admitted that his bank employees State Vs. Vijender Kumar @ Sunil Narang FIR No. 73/2004 PS Kamla Market 3/30 were performed their duties honestly for opening a bank account following requirement must be complied i.e., a) Bank opening Form, b) ID proof, c) Residence Proof, d) Passport size photograph of the customer and an introducer. He admitted that the presence of customer/introducer required at the time of opening his bank account. He admitted that prior to open a account, account opening officer checked all the relevant documents and requirement and on finding the same satisfactory, the account was opened. He admitted that as per requirement, a passport size photo of the customer should be pasted on account opening form. If there is any irregularity finds during verification, the said account opening form stands not accepted only eight cheques were stolen from the bank in this case. He did not remember the exact amount of said cheques, however, it may be around Rs. 20 Lacs. Some employee from company had complained to the bank about non credit of cheque amount on that particular date, so that the matter was complained to the police. He did not personally check about the grievance of employee from company who had complained to the bank. He did not verify whether all the said cheques were deposited in the bank for clearance or not. For security purpose there was security guard in the Bank. He did not remember whether the employee of company had given an complaint in writing in respect of grievance to the bank or not. It should not be possible for any outsider to have access to the bank record whether documentary or electronic. As per his memory the complainant i.e. employee of the State Vs. Vijender Kumar @ Sunil Narang FIR No. 73/2004 PS Kamla Market 4/30 company had annexed the depositing receipt of cheques with the complaint filed with the bank. He did not remember whether the said complaint or depositing receipt of cheques were given to the police or not. He denied that he had lodged a false complaint in respect of the cheques details mentioned in complaint Ex. PW2/A as said cheques were never deposited in the bank. He denied that he was deposing falsely.
7. PW-3 Inspector Inderpal has deposed in his examination-in- chief that on 26.02.2004, SHO marked him the complaint with direction for necessary action and registered the case, if required. He made endorsement Ex.PW3/A on the complaint. He presented the rukka to duty officer and got registered the case. He went to Syndicate Bank where complainat H R Kamath, Manager of Syndicate bank, Asaf Ali Road met him. He made enquiry from Manager and recorded his statement. Bank Manager gave his reply Ex.PW2/B alonwith cheques and bank statement Ex.PW2/C. He reached at ICICI Bank, Vasant Vihar where one Anirugh Sen produced account opening form / relationship form for Sunil, two cheques of Canara Bank and one cheque of Punjab and Sindh Bank. He seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/B. The opening form Ex.P1, two cheques of Canara Bank are exhibited as Ex.P2 and cheque of Punjab and Sindh Bank Ex.P3. He has further deposed that on 13.03.2004, he reached at HDFC Bank, New Friends Colony, Delhi. The bank manager produced him original account opening form of Sunil and three cheques of HDFC Bank, photocopy of DL of Sunil and PAN card of Sunil. He seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/C. The account opening form exhibited as Ex.P4. Three State Vs. Vijender Kumar @ Sunil Narang FIR No. 73/2004 PS Kamla Market 5/30 cheques of HDFC Bank exhibited Ex.P5. Photocopy of PAN card marked as Mark PW3/A. He has further deposed that on 06.04.2004, he reached at Bank of Rajasthan, Janpath, New Delhi where bank manager, J P Shukla produced original one bank draft no. 629529 issued by bank of Rajasthan. He took the same in possession vide memo Ex.PW3/D. The said draft exhibited as Ex.P6. He recorded the statement of witnesses and thereafter, he was transferred and he handed over the case file to MHC(R). The charge-sheet was filed SI G S Sharma. During trial, he was directed to file the supplementary charge-sheet, accordingly, he filed the supplementary charge-sheet in the present case in respect of verification of drawer of instrument and bank draft after recording the statement of witnesses.
8. PW-4 Harshad Vaid has deposed in his examination-in-chief that on his firm is having account number 90001250000124 in Syndicate Bank, Asaf Ali Road. On 21.02.2004, eight cheques and one draft were deposited in the bank. He further deposed that on 26.02.2004, bank informd him that all the cheques and draft has been stolen from the bank and those were sent to ICICI and HDFC bank for clearance. He got stopped the payment of those cheques and bak draft. The draft was got encashed. He had informed to his bank. The three cheques placed on record exhibited as Ex.P3 and Ex.P2.
9. PW-5 Rajan Singhal has deposed in his examination-in-chief that the Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. was merged in ICICI bank in the year 2011. All the documents and records pertaining to all accounts etc., were handed over by the bank of Rajasthan Ltd. to ICICI Bank. The summons were issued in the name of Bank of Rajasthan tobring the original State Vs. Vijender Kumar @ Sunil Narang FIR No. 73/2004 PS Kamla Market 6/30 record, pertaining to the issuance of draft no. 629529 dated 18.02.2004 favouring in UNI Agencies (Chemical) Pvt Ltd amounting to Rs.5,03,568/-. The entire original record in respect of the aforesaid bank draft was not traceable. The entries were made in the computer system when the ICICI bank had acquired the Bank of Rajasthan. He checked the record filled in computer system available at the branch ICICI Bank,MI Road, Jaipur. He brought the screenshots of the said required report in respect of aforesaid draft, the same are duly attested and signed by him being bank Manager, ICICI Bank MI Road, Jaipur. The said record exhibited as Ex.PW5/A. As per record, the said draft was issued in favour of UNI Agencies (Chemical) Pvt. Ltd. On 18.02.2004 of amounting to Rs.5,03,568/- from the account of Archen Laboratories.
10. During cross-examination of the witness by the accused, PW-5 stated that the document Ex. PW5/A was not electronic record and the same was computer generated copy. He admitted that he had not brought any certificate u/s 65 B Evidence Act, in respect of the record. He admitted that he has no personal knowledge about the present case. He denied that the record false and manipulated. He denied that he was deposing falsely.
11. PW-6 Mukesh Kumar Bansal has deposed in his examination- in-chief that he brought the original record in respect of account of M/s Uni Agencies (Chemical) Ltd. The record consisting original account opening application of M/s Uni Agencies (Chemical) Ltd as well as the documents (memorandum and article of association of M/s Uni Agencies (Chemical) Ltd. Extract of Board of meeting State Vs. Vijender Kumar @ Sunil Narang FIR No. 73/2004 PS Kamla Market 7/30 of M/s Uni Agencies Ltd furnished by customer M/s Uni Agencies (chemical) Ltd. The photocopy of the above said record exhibited as Ex.PW6/A. As per record, Mr. Harshad Viad and Ms. Neeta Vaid were authorized to run the said account of firm M/s Uni Agencies (Chemical) Ltd. in the bank being its director.
12. PW-7 N Gopinath has deposed in his examination-in-chief that in the month of March 2004, the police of PS Kamla Market visited his office and asked to provide the account opening form in respect of account no. 0891000083125 of Sunil Narang and cheques by which transaction was made in said account. He had provided the original account opening form of aforesaid account and three cheques bearing no. 440926 of Rs.4 lacs, cheque no.440927 of Rs.50,000/- and cheque no. 440928 of Rs.30,000/- to the police. The police had taken the same in possession vide memo Ex.PW3/C. The original account opening Ex.P4 and the cheques are exhibited as Ex.P5.
13. During cross-examination of the witness by the accused, PW-7 stated that KYC means Know Your Customers. He admitted that application form required on behalf of customer for opening new account. Any identify proof of customer and address proof alongwith photograph of customer required for opening new account. He admitted that the passport size photograph of customer required duly pasted on the account opening form for opening new account. The personal presence of customer also required at the State Vs. Vijender Kumar @ Sunil Narang FIR No. 73/2004 PS Kamla Market 8/30 time of opening new account. Customer has to sign the account opening form in the presence of concerned bank official. He admitted that the bank officer required to get verify all information furnished by the customer in his account opening form. If the bank was not satisfied with the information furnished by the customer, application form or opening new form may be rejected. He denied that he was deposing falsely.
14. PW-8 Sunny Arora has deposed in his examination-in-chief that he was directed by this court by way of notice to produce the original account opening form of Sunil Narang and statement of account bearing no. 00891000083125. He perused the all entire record available in the bank. The original opening account form of Sunil Narang was handed over to the police by previous bank official. He brought the attested statement of aforesaid account of Sunil Narang from 14.11.2003 to 20.07.2018 and the same exhibited as Ex.PW8/A.
15. During cross-examination of the witness by Ld. Counsel for the accused, PW-8 stated that KYC means Know Your Customers. He admitted that application form required on behalf of customer for opening new account. Any identify proof of customer and address proof alongwith photograph of customer required for opening new account. He admitted that the passport size photograph of customer required duly pasted on the account opening form for opening new account. The personal presence of State Vs. Vijender Kumar @ Sunil Narang FIR No. 73/2004 PS Kamla Market 9/30 customer also required at the time of opening new account. Customer has to sign the account opening form in the presence of concerned bank official. He admitted that the bank officer required to get verify all information furnished by the customer in his account opening form. If the bank was not satisfied with the information furnished by the customer, application form or opening new form may be rejected. He denied that he was deposing falsely.
16. PW-9 ASI Hamender Singh has deposed in his examination- in-chief that on 05.03.2007, he joined the investigation of this case with IO / SI G S Sharma. He alongwith IO were present at Hamdard Chowk, Kamla Market where IO received secret information that the accused Devender who wanted in this case will come on a scooter No. DL-3SAK-4891 and he could be apprehended. After sometime one person came on the aforesaid scooter from the side of Cannought Place and he was apprehended at the instance of secret informer near metro Station, Ajmeri Gate, Delhi whose name revealed as Devender Sen. The accused Devender Sen was interrogated by the IO and made his disclosure statement Ex.PW9/A. Accused Devender Sen was arrested vide memo Ex.PW9/B and personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW9/C. The accused was pointed out the place of occurrence i.e., First Floor, Syndicate Bank, Asaf Ali Road from where the cheques in question were stolen by him and accused Vijender. Pointing out memo exhibited as Ex.PW9/D. State Vs. Vijender Kumar @ Sunil Narang FIR No. 73/2004 PS Kamla Market 10/30
17. During cross-examination of the witness by Ld. Counsel for the accused, PW-9 denied that accused Devender did not make any disclosure statement.
18. PW-10 HC Rajpal Singh has deposed in his examination-in- chief that on 04.10.2007, he was present in the PS with IO / ASI Khajan Singh. One person came in police station and he surrendered himself to the IO by stating that he was the person who wanted in the present case. That person disclosed his name as Inderjeet Singh Kochar. IO interrogated Inderjeet Singh and made disclosure statement Ex.PW10/A. The accused Inderjeet Singh was arrested vide memo Ex.PW10/B and personally searched vide memo Ex.PW10/C.
19. PW-11 Naresh Malik has deposed in his examination-in-chief that on 14/15.11.2006, accused was arrested by him during the investigation of case FIR NO. 416/06, PS Connaught Place. He has correctly identified accused. He recorded his disclosure statement in which accused disclosed his involvement in several cases including the present case. The photocopy of the disclosure statement was supplied to the IO / SI G S Sharma and the same marked as PW11/A. The original of this document attached with the charge sheet of FIR No. 416/06, PS Connaught Place.
20. PW-12 Retired Inspector G S Sharma has deposed in his examination-in-chief that on 01.10.2005, case was marked to him by the SHO PS Kamla Market. He deposed that on 27.11.2006, the State Vs. Vijender Kumar @ Sunil Narang FIR No. 73/2004 PS Kamla Market 11/30 DO of PS Kamla Market received the information regarding your arrest in case FIR No.416/06, PS Cannought Place. After that three successive production warrants were issued by the concerned court but the jail authority did not produce the said accused. On 08.01.2007, accused was produced in the concerned court and after verification, accused was arrested in the present case by him vide memo Ex.PW12/A. His personal search was also conducted by him vide memo Ex.PW12/B. His disclosure statement exhibited as Ex.PW12/C was also recorded. He disclosed that two more persons namely Devender and Inderjeet were also involved in the present case. After that during the course of investigation, his medical examination was conducted. He took his handwriting and signatures samples, the same exhibited as Ex.PW12/D. He took accused to the place of occurrence where accused admitted that accused alongwith other two accused persons had committed the offence. The pointing out memo regarding the spot was prepared vide memo Ex.PW12/E. He took accused to the office cum house of the other two accused persons, but they were not present. He further deposed that on 05.03.2007, other accused Devender was arrested vide arrest Ex.PW9/D. His personal search was also got conducted vide memo Ex.PW9/C. Disclosure statement of accused Devender Ex.PW9/A was recorded. Accused Devender was taken to the place of occurrence where he correctly identified the spot and pointing out memo Ex.PW9/D was prepared in this regard. No recovery was made from the accused Devender and he was sent State Vs. Vijender Kumar @ Sunil Narang FIR No. 73/2004 PS Kamla Market 12/30 back to JC by the orders of concerned court.
21. PW-13 Reena Sharma has deposed in his examination-in- chief that he brought the summoned record i.e., the original case file of FIR No. 416/06, PS Connaught Place, State Vs. Vijender Kumar and others, u/s 420/419/471/120-B IPC pending in the court of Ms. Preet Parewa, Ld. MM, Patiala House Courts. The said judicial file contains his disclosure statement recorded in case FIR no.416/06, PS Cannaught Place. Photocopy of the said disclosure statement exhibited as Ex.PW13/A.
22. PW-14 HC Mundhe Dhyanoba has deposed in his examination-in-chief that on 12.04.2004, SI Inder Pal Singh directed to him to get the medical examination of Khursheed Anwar Warsi conducted from the hospital. Thereafter, he along with Khursheed Anwar Warsi went to LNJP hospital for medical examination. After medical examination, we returned at PS.
23. PW-15 Naresh Goyal has deposed in his examination-in-chief that he run pharmaceutical manufacturing factory in the name and style "Maiden Pharmaceutical Ltd." with registered office at 474, Aggarwal Cyber Plaza-II, Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura, Delhi. The cheque dated 21.02.2004 was issued by him to Uni Agencies Chemical Pvt. Ltd which was a supplier to his company. He never issued the cheque in the name of Sunil Narang. The cheque is exhibited as Ex. P-3. He confirmed that his signature at point A on Ex. P-3 and the stamp affixed near his signature at point A is also State Vs. Vijender Kumar @ Sunil Narang FIR No. 73/2004 PS Kamla Market 13/30 of his company. The word "SUNIL NARANG" written on portion B to B-1 on Ex. P-3 is not in his handwriting. He cannot say with certainty whether signature at point B his or not as many years have passed.
24. During cross-examination of the witness by Ld. Counsel for the accused, PW-15 stated that police had recorded his one statement in his office. He did not remember whether he had signed on his statement recorded by the Police or not. The person from Uni Agencies who used to collect cheques in routine had collected the cheque from his office. He did not remember his name today. He denied that he was deposing falsely.
25. PW-16 Mahavir Prasad Jain has deposed in his examination- in-chief that on 18.02.2004, he was posted as Dy. Manager, Bank of Rajasthan at M. I. Road Branch, Jaipur, Rajasthan. The bank draft no. 629529 dated 18.02.2004 issued in favour of Uni Agencies (Chemical) Pvt. Ltd was issued by him. The said bank draft exhibited as Ex. P-6. However, the signature at point B is not mine and forged one. When he issued the abovementioned draft, accused mentioned from C to D was not mentioned there. He had not done any alteration on the bank draft when it was issued.
26. During cross-examination of the witness by Ld. Counsel for the accused, PW-16 stated that three copies are prepared of bank draft when it is issued. One copy is attached with the voucher of the bank, second copy sent to the branch in which it was payable and State Vs. Vijender Kumar @ Sunil Narang FIR No. 73/2004 PS Kamla Market 14/30 third copy i.e., original was handed over to customer. He retired in the year 2009, the voucher may be in the Bank of Rajasthan, M. I. Road Branch, Jaipur. IO had inquired him, however, he did not remember when his statement was recorded.
27. PW-17 Abdul Mateen has deposed in his examination-in- chief that while working as Director of Unicure (India) Pvt. Ltd., on 22.02.2004, he issued two cheques no. 743399 and 743401 in the name of Uni Agencies (Chemicals) Pvt. Ltd. Both the cheques exhibited as Ex.P-2. The cheque number exhibited as Ex. P2 and bearing no. 743399. However, signature mentioned at point B was not mine. The alteration at portion C to D was not done by him. He had not mentioned "Pay to Sunil Narang" on the said cheque. The cheque number exhibited as Ex. P2 and bearing no.743401. However, signature mentioned at point B was not mine. The alteration at portion C to D was not done by him. He had not mentioned "Pay to Sunil Narang" on the said cheque. The stamp on portion E on both cheque were not affixed by him.
28. During cross-examination of the witness by Ld. Counsel for the accused, PW-17 stated that he did not remember whether both cheques were debited or not. 99% was chances that both might have been debited. Police had recorded his statement.
29. PW-18 Ravinder Mehta has deposed in his examination-in- chief that their bank was directed to produced the original details of DD No 629529 dated 18.02.2004. After perusal of the record it is State Vs. Vijender Kumar @ Sunil Narang FIR No. 73/2004 PS Kamla Market 15/30 found that the record related to original abovesaid DD has been destroyed as the document was older than the year 2007. Letter related to this regard Ex- PW-18/A bearing signature of Manager Subodh Mishra at point A.
30. PW-19 ACP Inderpal Singh has deposed in his examination- in-chief that during the course of investigation on 08.10.2015, he went to the ICICI Bank, MI Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan to verify the DD No 629529 as the Bank of Rajasthan has been merged in the ICICI Bank. He verified the same from the bank and collected the documents i.e., photocopy of DD No. 629529 & reply of letter dated 18.02.2004 and recorded the statement of witnesses. Photocopy of DD No. 629529 exhibited as Ex. PW19/A. Reply to the letter dated 18.02.2004 exhibited as Ex.PW19/B. After completion of the investigation, he prepared the supplementary challan and submitted before the Court.
31. PW-20 Rajender Kumar Bhartia has deposed in his examination-in-chief that in the year 2004, he was working in the Archem Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., as a Additional Director. His company had issued a draft of the Bank of Rajasthan Bank Ltd in favour of UNI Agencies (Chemicals Pvt. Ltd) dated 18.02.2004 for rupees five lacs three thousand something. The said draft exhibited as Ex. P-6. Thereafter, police officials came to his company and inquired the fact that whether this company had issued the above- mentioned draft or not. After cheking report, he had informed the State Vs. Vijender Kumar @ Sunil Narang FIR No. 73/2004 PS Kamla Market 16/30 police official that same had been issued by their company.
32. During cross-examination of the witness by Ld. Counsel for the accused, PW-20 stated that he did not bring any record pertaining to the draft. Draft was prepared in his presence. Company had sent the draft in question by post to UNI Agencies. Only one draft was issued by our company. He denied that he was deposing falsely.
33. PW-21 Devak Ram has deposed in his examination-in-chief that 17.01.2011, he was posted in FSL Rohini Delhi as Senior Scientific Officer (document division). On 31.01.2008, certain documents were received in their laboratory from SHO Kamla Market vide memo No.56 dated 31.01.2008 (Objected by ld. Counsel for accused that FSL report is unsealed). The questioned documents were marked as Q1 to Q3, Q3/1, Q4, Q5, Q5/1,Q5/2, Q6, Q7 and specimen writing and signature marked S1 to S9 of Vijender @ Sunil Narang and specimen signatures (writings) marked as S10 to S14 of Altaf Hussain. He examined the aforesaid documents with the help of available instruments and gave his opinion Ex.PW21/A bearing his signature at point A on each page. After examination, the case report and document were collected by authorized messenger of PS Kamla Market in sealed envelope duly sealed with FSL. The specimen signatures and writing marked S1 to S14 Ex.PW12/D (colly). In his first opinion, the person who wrote red enclosed writings and signatures stamped and marked S1 State Vs. Vijender Kumar @ Sunil Narang FIR No. 73/2004 PS Kamla Market 17/30 to S9 also wrote the red enclosed signatures similarly stamped and marked Q3, Q3/1, Q4,Q5, Q5/1 and Q7 and the details reasons were mentioned in the report Ex.PW21/A. In his second opinion, the person who wrote red enclosed signatures (writings) stamped and marked S10 to S14 also wrote red enclosed signatures (writings) similarly stamped and marked Q1 and the details reasons mentioned in the report Ex.PW21/A. In his third opinion, it has not been possible to express any opinion on the rest of the items on the basis of material at hand.
34. During cross-examination of the witness by Ld. Counsel for the accused, PW-21 stated that he had done specialized course for identification of handwriting and signature of persons. He admitted that science of handwriting and signature was a developing science and based on law of probabilities. He admitted that IO had not taken the specimen signatures and handwriting of accused in his presence. He can not state at this time who has brought the documents in question to FSL. He voluntarily stated that this record was available in FSL receipt register. The said FSL report was handed over to concerned authorized person/official of PS Kamla Market. He cannot say whether the questioned documents sent to FSL were sealed or unsealed. He voluntarily stated that this record was available in FSL receipt register. He can not say till how much time the FSL report had remained in his office. He voluntarily stated that 111111111 State Vs. Vijender Kumar @ Sunil Narang FIR No. 73/2004 PS Kamla Market 18/30
35. Vol. However, this record is available in FSL receipt register. However I can tell the date of preparation of report which is mentioned on the report. Vol. However after examination we keep the file within our safe custody and at the time of collection it is sealed in presence of the authorized person. It is wrong to suggest that I have prepared the said FSL report at the instance of IO. It is wrong to suggest that I deliberately did not disclosed the true facts in my examination in chief dated 29.11.2023.
36. The prosecution evidence was closed on 01.02.2020 and the statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 read with section 281 of CrPC on 26.02.2022, wherein he pleaded his innocence and stated to have been falsely implicated. The accused did not lead defence evidence. Final arguments were heard. I have cogitated over the submissions made by ld. APP for the state and Ld. Counsel for the accused person.
DISCUSSION, DECISION AND REASONS THEREON:
37. I have heard the arguments addressed by the Ld. APP for state and the Ld. Counsel for the accused and the complainant. Documents on record perusal carefully.
38. In order to ensure seamless appraisal of evidence, the court has framed the following point of determination. Whether the accused Vijender Kumar in the year 2003/2004, at Syndicate Bank, Asaf Ali Road, Opened two bank accounts in the State Vs. Vijender Kumar @ Sunil Narang FIR No. 73/2004 PS Kamla Market 19/30 name of one Sunil Narang in HDFC Bank and ICICI Bank by using forged Pan Card, forged Driving license and stole drafts from the counter of Syndicate Bank tempered and converted them in favour of Sunil Narang, and thereafter, presented them in the fake bank account opened by him in the name of Sunil Narang for clearance and got one draft bearing no. 629529 amounting to Rs.5,03,560/- credited in his account and consequently withdrew the said amount.
39. In order to ensure gravity, the following sub-issues have been framed.
1. Whether the accused stole draft bearing No. 629529 and cheques bearing no. 743399, 743401 and 339035 from the counter of Syndicate Bank.
2. Whether the accused committed forgery by tampering the draft bearing no. 629529 and cheques bearing no. 743399, 743401 and 339035 with the name of Sunil Narang as the payee.
3.Whether the accused used forged DL and Pan card to open a fake bank account in the name of one Sunil Narang with the knowledge and reason to believe that the same are forged documents.
4. Whether accused cheated the complainant, Chief Manager, Syndicate Bank by altering the name of the payee in the draft as Sunil Narang, presenting it for clearance and subsequently, wrongfully gaining from the same by withdrawing the amount of Rs.5,03,560/- after impersonating himself as Sunil Narang.
40. The onus to prove the above framed sub-issues shall be on the prosecution.
State Vs. Vijender Kumar @ Sunil Narang FIR No. 73/2004 PS Kamla Market 20/30
41. In order to avoid repetition and ensure convenience, after discussing sub-issue no.1, sub-issue no.2, 3 and 4 shall be discussed simultaneously.
1. Whether the accused stole draft bearing No. 629529 and cheques bearing no. 743399, 743401 and 339035 from the counter of Syndicate Bank.
42. The prosecution first examined complainant Sh H R Kamath, the Chief Manager, Syndicate Bank who verified his signatures on the complaint given by him as Ex.PW2/A. It was reported by the complainant that one of the customers of Syndicate Bank, namely, M/s Uni Agnecies (Chemicals Private Ltd. ) had deposited certain cheques in their branch for clearance. However, it was found from record that the cheques / drafts were not appearing in the outward clearing for 23.02.2024 and hence were not credited to the party's account. It was subsequently reported by the party that most of these cheques have been presented from various other banks in Delhi in clearing on 23.02.2004 and 25.02.2004. One of the DDs drawn on Rajasthan Bank has been cleared by them in high value clearing for 23.02.2004 and paid to HDFC bank, New Friends colony to the credit of one Sunil Narang who has withdraw the said amount.
43. The prosecution has then examined PW-3 Inspector Inder Pal who has categorically stated that in his examination-in-chief that he reached the Syndicate Bank for enquiry, the bank manager gave his reply along with cheques and bank statement. Thereafter, he State Vs. Vijender Kumar @ Sunil Narang FIR No. 73/2004 PS Kamla Market 21/30 reached at ICICI Bank where one Anirudh Sain produced the account opening form of one Sunil, two cheques of Canara Bank, one cheque of Punjab and Sind bank which were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/B. He then reached HDFC Bank, New Friends Colony where the bank manager also produced account opening form,three cheques of HDFC bank,photocopy of DL and Pan Card of Sunil. The same were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/C.
44. On 06.04.2025, he reached at Bank Rajasthan and seized original draft bearing no. 629529 issued by Bank Rajastan. The same was exhibited as PW-6.
45. The Managing Director of M/s Agencies (Chemicals Private Ltd.) was examined as PW-4 who categorically stated in his examination-in-chief that it was on 26.02.2024, that the bank informed him that all the cheques and drafts have been stolen and sent to ICICI Bank for clearance. Consequently, he stopped the payment of the said cheques and draft.
46. The prosecution has also examined Sh. N Gopinath, Manager HDFC Bank as PW-7 who has verified his signatures on the seizure memo of the account opening form bearing no.0891000083125 of Sunil Narang and the cheques by which the transactions were made in the said account. The same is exhibited Ex.PW3/C.
47. The account statement of the said account has been exhibited as PW8 Sunny Arora, Operation Manager, HDFC Bank.
48. Further, PW-9 ASI Hamender has categorically stated in his State Vs. Vijender Kumar @ Sunil Narang FIR No. 73/2004 PS Kamla Market 22/30 examination-in-chief that accused Devender Singh (now discharged) had stated in his disclosure statement that he along with co-accused Vijender had stolen the cheques in question from Syndicate Bank.
49. The prosecution has examined the Retired Inspector G S Sharma as PW-12 who has categorically stated in his examination- in-chief that hand writing and signature specimen of accused Vijender were recorded on the day of his arrest and has been exhibited as Ex.PW12/D.
50. Further, the drawer of the cheque, namely, Naresh Goyal has been examined as PW-15. He has categorically stated in his examination-in-chief that the cheque dated 21.02.2004 was issued by Uni Agencies Chemical Private Ltd., however, the same was never issued in the name of Sunil Narang. He further stated that Sunil Narang written on point B to B1 on the said cheque (Ex.P3) is not in his hand writing. However, he could not say with certainty whether the signature at point B were made by him or not. In his cross-examination, the said witness stated that the cheques were collected by some person by Uni Agencies from his office. However, he does not remember his name.
51. The prosecution then examined Mahavir Prasad Jain as PW-16 who verified his signatures on the bank draft (Ex.P6). He further stated that the word Sunil Narang was not mentioned at the time, he made the signature.
52. PW-17 Abdul Mateen who is the Director of Unicure Ltd. has State Vs. Vijender Kumar @ Sunil Narang FIR No. 73/2004 PS Kamla Market 23/30 categorically stated in his examination-in-chief that he had issued two cheques bearing nos. 743399 and 743401 in the name of Uni Agencies, however, he had not mentioned the name of payee as Sunil Narang. He has also stated that the signatures at point A and B were not made by him.
53. PW-20 Rajender Kumar Bhartiya has verified that the draft in question was issued in favour of Uni Agencies by Archam Pharmaceutical Pvt. Ltd.
54. Lastly, Devak Ram, Retired Assistant Director, FSL was examined as PW-21 who categorically stated in his examination-in- chief that he had prepared the FSL report and the same was collected by an authorized messenger from PS Kamla Market in a sealed envelope. However, during examination-in-chief, it was objected to by Ld. counsel for accused that the FSL report was unsealed. The said witness testified that the hand writing and signatures on the account opening forms were made by the accused Vijender as Sunil Narang. During his cross-examination, the said witness admitted that the signs of hand writing and signature is a developing signs and based on law of probabilities.
55. A detailed appraisal of all the prosecution evidences suggests that only evidence that has come on record with respect to the charge u/s 380 IPC is the disclosure statement of the co-accused, Devender Singh who was consequently discharged. PW-9 ASI Hamender Singh has stated in his examination-in-chief that he had received a secret information with respect to accused Devender.
State Vs. Vijender Kumar @ Sunil Narang FIR No. 73/2004 PS Kamla Market 24/30 The accused Vijender was arrested on the basis of his disclosure statement. It is the settled position in law that the disclosure statement is hit by section 161 CrPC and shall not be admissible in evidence. Moreover, the secret information was received by him on 05.03.2007 which is after about three years from the incident. Moreover, the recovery of the alleged draft has not been made from accused Vijender. There is no eye witness to corroborate the fact that he stole the draft as well as the cheques in question from Syndicate Bank, Asaf Ali Road. No CCTV footage or CDR record is also on record to fortify the claims of the prosecution. Moreover, the said cheques and draft were issued on 18.02.2004, 20.02.2004, 21.02.2004 and the complaint was filed on 26.02.2004 when it was informed to the Bank Manager that out of these cheques and drafts, the DD drawn on the Bank of Rajasthan has been cleared and credited in the account of one Sunil Narang. Hence, admittedly, the factum of theft was not known to the bank before receiving the said information from their client, M/s Uni Agencies Chemicals Pvt. Ltd.
56. Hence, the prosecution has not been able to adduce sufficient evidence to prove the charge u/s 380 IPC against the accused.
57. The court shall now deal with the following sub-issues :-
2. Whether the accused committed forgery by tampering the draft bearing no. 629529 and cheques bearing no. 743399, 743401 and 339035 with the name of Sunil Narang as the payee.
3.Whether the accused used forged DL and Pan card to open a fake State Vs. Vijender Kumar @ Sunil Narang FIR No. 73/2004 PS Kamla Market 25/30 bank account in the name of one Sunil Narang with the knowledge and reason to believe that the same are forged documents.
4. Whether accused cheated the complainant, Chief Manager, Syndicate Bank by altering the name of the payee in the draft as Sunil Narang, presenting it for clearance and subsequently, wrongfully gaining from the same by withdrawing the amount of Rs.5,03,560/- after impersonating himself as Sunil Narang.
58. The accused has been charged u/s 419, 420, 468, 471 IPC for the offence of forgery and cheating. It was argued by the Ld. APP that Ex.P4 i.e., the account opening form from the HDFC Bank and Ex.P1 i.e., account opening form from ICICI Bank of Sunil Narang were sent to the FSL for comparison. As per the FSL report, the hand writing of accused Vijender was compared with the signatures as well as the specifications filled in the account opening forms as Sunil Narang. He further submitted that as per the report prepared by PW-21, the hand writing was found to be of accused Vijender. Hence, he prayed that the chain of circumstances is complete.
59. On the contrary, it was argued by the Ld. counsel for the accused that the accused cannot be convicted merely on the basis of the report of the hand writing expert. There is no evidence to suggest that the accused is the beneficiary of the amount withdrawn from the account of Sunil Narang. He further submitted that the hand writing on the cheques as well as the draft (Ex.P2 colly, Ex.P3 and Ex.P6) in question, wherein the name of the payee has been altered to Sunil Narang, was never sent to FSL for comparison. In State Vs. Vijender Kumar @ Sunil Narang FIR No. 73/2004 PS Kamla Market 26/30 fact, Ex.P5 colly i.e., cheques used to withdraw cash from the account of Sunil Narang were also never sent to FSL for comparison. Hence, he submitted that the material on record is not sufficient to convict the accused for the charge of cheating and forgery.
60. In order to establish the charge u/s 419, 420, IPC against the accused, it is essential for the prosecution to prove that the accused dishonestly induced the deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit to do if he were not deceived. It is essential that the act of the accused should have caused wrongful gain to him and wrongful loss to the person deceived. In order to establish the offence u/s 468 and 471 IPC, it is essential to prove that the accused forged the particulars in the draft, DL and Pan card for the purpose of cheating. In the present case, it has been alleged by the prosecution that the accused opened an account in the name of one Sunil Narang by forging his DL and Pan card in HDFC Bank. Subsequently, he presented the draft Ex.P6 in HDFC Bank which was cleared by them in high value clearing and credited in his account. Subsequently, it was withdrawn from the said account.
61. However, the only evidence against the accused is the FSL report Ex.PW-21/A, according to which the signature and hand writing on the account opening forms of Sunil Narang matched with the hand writing specimen of accused Vijender. The introducers, namely, Manoj Kumar Singh and Altaf Hussain in the account opening form Ex.P1 and Ex.P4 were never examined.
State Vs. Vijender Kumar @ Sunil Narang FIR No. 73/2004 PS Kamla Market 27/30 Although the specimen signatures of Altaf Hussain were taken and sent to FSL for comparison, however, he was never examined as a prosecution witness.
62. It is also pertinent to mention that the hand writing specimens of the accused were taken by the IO on the day of arrest and not in the presence of the magistrate. Section 311A CrPC empowers the magistrate to direct any accused to give any specimens of hand writing. The said provision was inserted in the year 2005 which is before the date of his arrest. The objective of the legislature in enacting the said provision was to provide safeguard to the interest of the accused persons and to give legitimacy to the procedure adopted by the IO. The same has been held in the case of Court on its own Motion Vs. State passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 23.12.2024.
63. It is also pertinent to mention that the FSL report was not sealed at the time, it was exhibited by PW-21, as observed in his examination-in-chief. Moreover, there is no witness or CCTV footage to suggest that it was the accused Vijender who had filled the said account opening forms. Reliance is placed on the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as Magan Bihari Lal Vs. State of Punjab (1977) 2 SCC 210 "expert opinion must always be received with great caution........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."
64. Hence, it is essential that before acting upon the opinion of State Vs. Vijender Kumar @ Sunil Narang FIR No. 73/2004 PS Kamla Market 28/30 hand writing expert, prudence requires that such evidence is corroborated by direct or circumstantial evidence. However, in the present case, the chain of circumstances is not complete. As discussed above, the charge of theft against the accused could not be proved. No reasonable explanation has come on record to establish the presence of the alleged cheques and DDs in the possession of the accused. Ex.P-6, Ex.P2 colly and Ex.P3 were never sent to FSL for comparison. Hence, it could not be established as to who made the alteration in the name of the payee "as pay to Sunil Narang". In fact, PW-16 M P Jain has categorically stated in his examination-in-chief that signatures at point B on Ex.P6 (alleged draft) were not made by him. Hence, it has not been ascertained by the prosecution as to who had made the said alterations or had submitted the fake DL and Pan card along with account opening forms.
65. Further, the account statements of Sunil Narang Ex.PW8/A is also on record. Three cheques of HDFC Bank Ex.P5 colly are also on record that were allegedly used by Sunil Narang to operate his account. The said cheques (Ex.P5 colly) were also not sent to FSL for comparison with the hand writing specimen of the accused Vijender. Hence, there is no evidence to suggest that it was the accused Vijender who was the ultimate beneficiary of the amount of Rs.5,03,560/- that were credited in the account of Sunil Narang upon clearance of the alleged DD.
66. Hence, the prosecution has not been able to prove any State Vs. Vijender Kumar @ Sunil Narang FIR No. 73/2004 PS Kamla Market 29/30 wrongful gain in favour of the accused. Therefore, in view of the abovesaid discussion, the ingredients of section 419, 420, 468 and 471 IPC have not been established beyond reasonable doubt.
67. The prosecution has not been able to prove the sub-issues no.2, 3 and 4 in its favour. Accordingly, accused Vijender Kumar @ Sunil Narang s/o Sh. Raghunandan stands acquitted u/s 380, 419, 420, 468, 471 of IPC.
Announced in the open court Digitally
signed by
SAYESHA
SAYESHA CHADHA
CHADHA Date:
today. 2025.07.01
18:14:46
+0530
(SAYESHA CHADHA)
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST
CLASS-08, Central District,
Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi
[This judgment contains 30 pages and each page bears the initials of undersigned and the last page bears the complete sign of undersigned.] State Vs. Vijender Kumar @ Sunil Narang FIR No. 73/2004 PS Kamla Market 30/30