Delhi District Court
State vs . Vijay Prasad on 29 March, 2012
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIDYA PRAKASH ACMM1/NW/RC/DELHI
State Vs. Vijay Prasad
FIR No. 102/97
PS: Keshav Puram
U/s 420/468/471 IPC
Case ID No. 2404R0030361998
JUDGEMENT
A) Sl. No. of the case : 12/2
B) The date of commission : on or about 11.10.95
of offence
C) The name of the complainant : Smt. Sudha Gupta
Principal Sarvodaya Vidhalya
no.2, Keshav Puram, Delhi
D) The name & address of accused : Vijay Prasad
s/o Sh. Ganesh Bhagat
r/o 148, Sighalpur Village,
Shalimar Bagh, Delhi
Village Parsoni, PS Parasi
Distt. Paschim Champaran
Bihar.
E) Offence complained of : U/s 420/468/471 IPC
F) The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
G) Final order : Convicted
H) The date of such order : 29.03.2012
FIR No. 102/97 Page No.1/21
2
Date of Institution : 28.08.1998
Judgment reserved on : 15.03.2012
Judgment announced on: 29.03.2012
THE BRIEF REASONS FOR THE JUDGEMENT:
1. The accused namely Vijay Prasad has been sent to face trial in respect of offences u/s 420/468/471 IPC by prosecution on the allegations that he forged his appointment letter no. F.2(1)NW95610712 dated 11.10.95 purportedly issued by Dr. Prem Parkash the then Deputy Director (Education), N/W District, Delhi and used the same by dishonestly inducing Principal of Sarvodaya Vidhyalya No.2 situated within the jurisdiction of PS Keshav Puram to provide him job on the post of Peon on temporary basis in the said school.
2. In brief, the prosecution story as mentioned in the charge sheet is that written complaint dt. 11.4.97 was received in PS Keshav Puram from Ms. Sudha Gupta the then Principal of Sarvodaya Vidhayala no. 2, Keshav Puram, Delhi to the effect that on getting the authenticity of the appointment orders issued after May 1995 verified pursuant to receipt of letter dt. 14.3.97 from Deputy Director (Education), N/W District, it was found that the letter bearing no. F.2(1)NW95610712 dated 11.10.95 in respect of Vijay Prasad(accused herein) was not issued from the office of Deputy Director of Education, N/W Delhi. On the basis of said written complaint, FIR No. 102/97 Page No.2/21 3 FIR in respect of offences U/s 420/468/471 IPC was registered and investigation was marked to ASI Satya Dev Singh who collected the relevant documents from concerned offices, recorded the statements U/s 161 Cr.PC and arrested the accused.
3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet U/s 420/468/471 IPC was prepared against the accused and was filed in the Court on 28.08.98. Complete copies of the charge sheet and documents were supplied to the accused and after complying with the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C, arguments on charge were heard. Vide order dated 07.11.2000, charge was framed against the accused for the offences under section 420/471 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined eight witnesses i.e PW1 Dr. Prem Prakash Dy. Director (Education), PW2 Smt. Sudha Gupta, Education Officer, PW3 Sh. Mahesh Kumar Kaushik, PW4 Sh. Bharat Singh, PW5 Sh. Ram Krishan, PW6 W/HC Nirmala, PW7 Shri Sainditta Mal Sikka and PW8 Retd. SI Satya Dev.
5. Thereafter, the statement of the accused namely Vijay Prasad was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which the stand of the accused is of general denial. Accused stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present FIR No. 102/97 Page No.3/21 4 case. Although, the accused opted to lead DE but he failed to examine any witness towards DE despite grant of several opportunities and ultimately closed his evidence on 31.10.11.
6. I have heard the arguments of Ld. A.P.P for State and Ld. Counsel Sh. Riazuddin Khan adv on behalf of accused. I have also perused the record carefully.
PW1 Dr. Prem Prakash deposed that from August 1995 to 15 January 1997, he worked as Dy. Director (Education), N/W District Delhi. He never signed letter Ex.PW1/A bearing no. F2(1) N/W/95/61012 dt. 11.10.95. The said witness has not been cross examined by the accused despite grant of opportunity.
PW2 Smt. Sudha Gupta, Education Officer deposed that she was serving as Principal in Sarvodya Vidyalya No.2 at Keshav Puram till 06.07.99. The accused had joined the said school during her tenure on 11.10.95 as peon. At the time of his joining, accused had submitted his appointment letter Ex.PW1/A allegedly signed by Dr. Prem Prakash the then Dy. Director of Education. Accused kept doing his duty and went on leave in the year 1996 and thereafter, he did not turn up to his job. On 14.03.97, she received a letter Ex.PW2/A from Dy. Director Education, District North West whereby directions were issued to get the authenticity of all the appointments/orders issued after May 1995 from District Head Quarter verified. She FIR No. 102/97 Page No.4/21 5 further received a letter dt. 04.04.97 Ex.PW2/B signed by Dr. Bhupinder Singh the then Dy. Director Education informing that the appointment order of accused was not issued by the office of Director of Education. In the same letter, it was also directed to lodge the complaint with the concerned PS. Accordingly, she lodged a complaint Ex.PW2/C to PS Keshav Puram on 11.04.97. Police had seized the documents vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/D. She proved the joining report of the accused as Ex.PW2/E. She further deposed that in the month of April 1997, she had also produced the documents i.e photocopies of pages no. 1,4,5 of service book proved as Ex.PW2/F, G & H respectively. She also proved the carbon copy of joining report, matriculation certificate, earned leave application as Ex.PW2/I, J & K respectively. She wrote a letter Ex PW2/2 to Dy. Director Education regarding verification of appointment order followed by reminder dt. 03.04.97 Ex.PW2/M. She also proved peon book regarding receipt of joining report by the DEO and AO District N/W as Ex.PW2/N. All the said documents had been seized by IO through her letter dt. 17.04.97 Ex PW2/O written to SHO.
During her cross examination, she deposed that she had not received any letter of appointment of accused through Head Quarter but had only received the same through accused. At the time of joining, accused had produced both the office copy as well as official copy. She clarified that the office copy is the copy which was used to be received by the school from the head quarter either by post or by the employee personally.
FIR No. 102/97 Page No.5/21 6
PW3 Sh. Mahesh Kumar Kaushik deposed that he had worked at Government Boys Sr. Secondary School, Keshav Puram, Delhi. Smt. Sudha Gupta was the Principal of Sarvodya Vidhyalya No.2 in the year 1997. Police officials had visited the school and met Smt. Sudha Gupta which he knew as he was working as coordinator from CBSE. Smt. Sudha Gupta produced four documents in respect of one Vijay Prasad Peon. During his cross examination, he deposed that he worked as coordinator alongwith Smt. Sudha Gupta from the year 1994 to 1995. He denied the suggestion that he was not present at the time of preparation of seizure memo or that he did not have any personal knowledge of the appointment of accused in the school.
PW4 Sh. Bharat Singh deposed that he had joined as Peon in Sarvodya Vidyalya in the year 1978. The accused who was working as peon in the said school, remained absent from his duty and on the instructions of the Principal, he alongwith Sh. Ram Krishan (PWs) went to the house of accused at village Singhalpur. They found that accused had left the place but it could not be transpired as to where he had gone. During his cross examination, he deposed that they were instructed to deliver the letter to the accused.
PW5 Sh. Ram Krishan deposed that he worked as Lab. Asstt in the said school. As per the instructions of the Principal, he had accompanied Sh. Bharat FIR No. 102/97 Page No.6/21 7 Singh(PW4) to the house of accused who was working as peon. The accused was not found there as he had left the said address to some unknown place. During his cross examination, he deposed that letter given to them was not in an envelope.
PW6 W/HC Nirmala is duty officer and has proved carbon copy of FIR as Ex.PW6/A and her endorsement on rukka as Ex.PW6/B. The said witness has not been been cross examined by the accused despite grant of opportunity.
PW7 Sh. Sainditta Mal Sikka has proved the joining record of accused as Ex.PW7/A and notice given to accused for not attending the school without leave application or any information as Ex.PW7/B.He also proved the Certificate regarding medical fitness of accused as Ex.PW7/C, order regarding verification of appointment orders of accused as Ex.PW7/D and the intimation/information regarding unauthorized absence of accused from the school to the DDE/DO, district N/W by Principal of the accused as Ex.PW7/E. He further proved the verification of appointment order in respect of accused from Dy. Director of Education as Ex.PW7/F, letter regarding furnishing of original record in respect of accused in getting his appointment from the DDE, District N/W to Principal of school as Ex.PW7/G, the orders regarding the appointment of accused on the basis of fake orders as Ex.PW7/H & 7/I, legal notice sent by accused to the DDE, District N/W as Ex.PW7/J and reply to the same by the Principal of the school which was sent to FIR No. 102/97 Page No.7/21 8 DDE, District N/W as Ex.PW7/K. He has not been cross examined by the accused despite grant of opportunity.
PW8 Retd. SI Satya Dev deposed that on 11.04.97, duty officer had handed over the copy of FIR of the present case alongwith complaint to him for investigation. He alongwith Ct. Rajbir went to the aforesaid school but the school was found closed on that day. He obtained the photocopy of the documents which were furnished by accused at the time of his appointment to the post of peon. He seized the aforesaid documents vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/D. Accused was formally arrested by him and he was released on police bail. Ld. APP for the State also cross examined the witness with the permission of the Court. During such cross examination, he stated that appointment letter furnished by accused to the Principal was sent by her for verification and it was reported that the appointment letter dt. 11.10.95 has been obtained fraudulently. He further deposed that both these letters alongwith other documents were handed over to him by the Principal and these documents were seized by him vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/D. During his cross examination by accused, he testified that FIR of the present case has not been registered by DO in his presence. Investigation of the present case was marked to him on 11.04.97. He further testified that Principal had handed over him 11 photocopies of the documents and originals were not handed over to him on that day. He visited office of Dy. Director Education and inquired about the FIR No. 102/97 Page No.8/21 9 appointment letter in question. He prepared the seizure memo Ex.PW2/D in resepct of four documents handed over to him. After perusing the judicial file, witness stated that 10 photocopies exhibited as Ex.PW2/F to Ex.PW2/N were the same which were given by the Principal to him. He denied the suggestion that he did not record the statement of any of the employees of said school during investigation. He further denied the suggestion that no complaint from Govt School No. 2 was received in PS. He recorded the statement of Smt. Sudha Gupta in the presence of PWs namely Bharat Singh and Sh. Ram Kishan. He denied the suggestions that he never visited the school, did not file any written verification report of four documents on record or that document Ex.PW2/B is a photocopy.
7. First bone of contention raised by Ld defence counsel is that only photocopies have been exhibited by prosecution witnesses more particularly by PW2 namely Smt Sudha Gupta/complainant. Therefore, same should not be considered as piece of evidence while deciding the present case for want of their originals being produced during trial. Ld counsel argued that it was necessary for the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt but prosecution has failed to do so and therefore, the accused is entitled to be acquitted in this case.
8. On the other hand, Ld APP for the State has argued that the prosecution FIR No. 102/97 Page No.9/21 10 witnesses examined during trial, have fully supported the case of prosecution on all material points. Ld APP for the State has further submitted that appointment letter Ex PW1/A was used by present accused as genuine one and on the basis of said letter, he obtained the job on the post of peon in Sarvodaya Vidyalaya No. 2, Keshav Puram, Delhi by dishonestly inducing the complainant/Smt. Sudha Gupta(PW2) to provide him the job for the said post which would not have otherwise been provided to him in the absence of said forged order and therefore, the present accused is guilty of committing offences U/s 420/471 IPC.
9. Before discussing the rival submissions made on behalf of both the sides, it is appropriate to mention here that in order to prove the offence U/s 471 IPC, it was essential for the prosecution to prove on record that the accused had requisite knowledge or reason to believe that the document used by him is a forged document.
10. The expression 'forgery' has been defined in Section 463 IPC which provides that whoever makes any false document or false electronic record or part thereof with intent to cause damage or injury to public or to any person or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property or to enter into any express or implied contract or with intent to commit fraud, is said to have committed forgery. Section 464 Cr.PC provides the situations where a person is said to have FIR No. 102/97 Page No.10/21 11 made a false document or false electronic record.
11. In order to prove the offence of 'cheating' as defined in Section 415 IPC, it was essential for the prosecution to prove the following ingredients:
1. That the accused deceived any person;
2.That the accused fraudulently or dishonestly induced the person so deceived for delivering any property to any person or to consent that any person shall retain such property or;
3. That the accused intentionally induced the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if not deceived and which act is likely to cause damage or harm to that person.
12. Now, it has to be seen as to whether the prosecution has been able to prove its case in respect of offences U/s 420/471 IPC against the accused herein or not. PW1 namely Dr. Prem Parkash the then Deputy Director (Education) N/W District categorically testified during chief examination that the letter no. F.2(1) NW95610712 dated 11.10.95 Ex PW1/A has not been signed by him at all. The said letter placed on record is the original one which purportedly bears the signature of Dr. Prem Parkash regarding appointment of accused herein to the post of peon on temporary basis in the pay scale of Rs. 750940/ plus usual allowances admissible under the rules. The statement of said witness has gone unchallenged FIR No. 102/97 Page No.11/21 12 and unrebutted as the accused did not cross examine the said witness despite grant of opportunity. That being so, it is presumed that the accused is also not disputing the testimony of said witness. While taking this view, I am also fortified by the judgment of our own High Court reported at 1976 RLR(N) 112 wherein it has been held that portion of statement of a witness which is not crossexamined, amounts to admission thereof on the part of opposite side.
13. PW2 Smt. Sudha Gupta(who is the complainant in this case) categorically testified during chief examination that it was the accused herein who had produced the appointment letter Ex PW1/A allegedly signed by Dr. Prem Parkash the then Deputy Direction (Education) N/W District on the basis of which he was allowed to join on the post of peon in Sarvodaya Vidayalay no. 2, Keshav Puram, Delhi on 11.10.95 during her tenure. Not only this, she further deposed that on 14.3.97, she had received letter Ex PW2/A from Dr. Bhupinder Singh the then Deputy Director (Education) N/W District whereby direction was issued to verify the appointment orders issued after May 1995 from District Head Quarter and during the course of inquiry, it was intimated to her vide another letter dt. 04.4.97 Ex PW2/B that alleged appointment letter dt. 11.10.95 in respect of present accused was not issued by the office of Director of Education. She has also proved the police complaint Ex PW2/C lodged by her in this regard. She has also proved the relevant record regarding joining of accused on the post of peon on the basis of letter Ex PW1/A. FIR No. 102/97 Page No.12/21 13 During her cross examination, the accused did not cross examine the said witness on aforesaid material aspects. Thus, the relevant portion of the testimony of PW2 on those points remained unrebutted and unchallenged and amounts to admission thereof on the part of accused in view of the authority mentioned supra.
14. The Court does not find any merit in the argument raised on behalf of accused that since the originals of documents Ex PW2/A , PW2/B, PW2/E, PW2/F to PW2/N have not been produced said documents are liable to be discarded under the law. It is appropriate to mention here that Ex. PW2/A is the syclostyled copy of letter dt. 14.3.97 issued by Dr. Bhupinder Singh the then Deputy Director of Education, N/W District which bears original endorsement under the signature of PW2 namely Smt. Sudha Gupta. As rightly submitted by Ld APP for the State, syclostyled copy of the letter is sent to the office of Principal from the office of Director of Education as per practice being followed. PW2 has rather explained during her cross examination that the office copy is the copy which is actually used to be received by the school from the Head Quarter either by post or by employee personally. Thus, no doubt can be placed on the genuineness or authenticity of the said document. This is more so when the said accused himself did not challenge the said document during cross examination of PW2. Likewise, the accused also preferred not to challenge the genuineness and authenticity of other remaining documents proved by PW2, by putting relevant questions during her cross FIR No. 102/97 Page No.13/21 14 examination. In case the accused had any reservation about the authenticity or genuineness of aforesaid documents, it was incumbent upon him to raise objection to the exhibition of those documents during chief examination itself and also to put relevant questions on said aspect during cross examination so as to show that the said documents were not genuine. Not even a single suggestion has been given by accused during cross examination of PW2 that either of the said document was not genuine. Moreover, letter dt. 04.4.97 Ex PW2/B is the original document. The other documents Ex PW2/F to PW2/O are the attested true copies pertaining to accused only. Ex. PW2/F to PW2/H are the photocopies of page no. 1,4 and 5 of service book of the accused, Ex PW2/I is the attested true copy of application seeking grant of earned leave moved by present accused, Ex PW2/J and PW2/K are the photocopies of letters issued by the Principal of the school to the accused for showing cause regarding his absence from duty, letter dt. 25.3.97 Ex PW2/L is the attested copy of letter issued by Principal of school to Deputy Director (Education) N/W District regarding verification of appointment orders of various employees including the present accused whose name appears at serial no. 1 therein and letter dt. 03.4.97 Ex PW2/M is the remainder of the previous letter while Ex PW2/N is the attested true copy of peon book maintained in the school record. It is relevant to note that photocopies of all the aforesaid documents Ex PW2/F to PW2/N are duly attested by Vice Principal of Sarvodaya Vidyalaya no. 2, Keshav Puram, Delhi and most of those documents have their origin from the record maintained in the FIR No. 102/97 Page No.14/21 15 school. In this backdrop, the Court is of the view that those documents are worth credence and should be duly considered under the law. Even otherwise, oral evidence available on record is sufficient enough to establish the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt.
15. The perusal of joining report Ex PW2/E clearly shows that the present accused joined on the post of peon in the said school on the basis of letter Ex PW1/A. The said joining report Ex PW2/E is totally unchallenged from the side of accused. The testimony of PW1 clearly establishes on record that same is a forged document which was never issued by the office of Director of Education. The accused himself has given suggestion during cross examination of PW2 that on seeing the appointment letter Ex PW2/A, she had no suspicion about the authenticity thereof and the said suggestion was admitted to be correct by the said witness. Same further shows that the accused himself had not been disputing this fact that he had used the said appointment letter in the office of Principal, Sarvodaya Vidyalaya no. 2, Keshav Puram, Delhi and he had joined on the post of peon on the basis thereof.
16. Another submission made on behalf of accused that PW3 could not tell as to how many peons were working in the school during relevant period goes to show that the said witness is not trust worthy or that since IO did not record the FIR No. 102/97 Page No.15/21 16 statement of Dr. Bhupinder Singh the then Deputy Director of Education N/W District, the investigation is improper and benefit thereof should be given to the accused, are found to be devoid of any merit. The Court also does not agree with the submission made by Ld defence counsel that the prosecution case should be thrown away merely because IO did not collect specimen signature or handwriting of accused during investigation. Rather, the said argument seems to be totally misconceived as the charges framed against the accused are in respect of offences U/s 420/471 IPC. In other words, the charge in respect of offence U/s 468 IPC has not been framed against the accused for this very reason that there is no sufficient material available on record which could even prima facie show that the accused had forged the appointment letter Ex PW1/A. The charges against the accused are that he used the forged appointment letter as genuine one within the meaning of Section 471 IPC and on the basis of said appointment letter, he dishonestly induced the principal of Sarvodaya Vidayalaya no. 2, Keshav Puram, Delhi(PW2 Smt Sudha Gupta) and obtained the job for the post of peon in the said school.
17. It is settled proposition of criminal law that prosecution has to prove its case on the judicial file beyond reasonable doubts and such doubts in the prosecution story entitle the accused to acquittal. In a case reported as Rama Kant Rai V/s. Madan Rai 2003 (8) Scale 243, it has been ruled that a person has no doubt, a FIR No. 102/97 Page No.16/21 17 profound right not to be convicted of an offence which is not established by the evidential standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Though this standard is a higher standard, there is, however, no absolute standard. What degree of probability amounts to 'proof' is an exercise particular to each case. Doubts would be called reasonable if they are free from a zest for abstract speculation. Law cannot afford any favorite other than truth. To constitute reasonable doubt, it must be free from an over emotional response. Doubts must be actual and substantial doubts as to the guilt of the accused person arising from the evidence, or from the lack of it, as opposed to mere vague apprehensions. A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely possible; but a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense. It must grow out of the evidence in the case. The concepts of probability and the degrees of it, cannot obviously, be expressed in terms of units to be mathematically enumerated as to how may of such units constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt. There is an unmistakable subjective element in the evaluation of the degrees of probability and the quantum of proof. Forensic probability must, in the last analyze, rest on a robust common sense and, ultimately, on the trained intuition of judge.
18. While the protection given by the criminal process to the accused persons is not to be eroded, at the same time, uninformed legitimization of trivialities would make a mockery of administration of criminal justice. In Sucha Singh and Anr. V/s. State of Punjab J.T. 2003 (6) S.C. 248, it has been ruled that: FIR No. 102/97 Page No.17/21 18
exaggerated devotion to the rule of benefit of doubt must not nurture fanciful doubts or lingering suspicion and thereby destroy social defence. Justice cannot be made sterile on the plea that it is better to let hundred quality escape than punish an innocent. Letting guilty escape is not doing justice according to law. (Gurbachan Singh V/s. Satpal Singh and Others J.T.1989 (4) S.C. 38; A.I.R. 1990 S.C. 209). Prosecution is not required to meet any and every hypothesis put forward by the accused. (State of U.P. V/s. Ashok Kumar Srivastava J.T. 1992 (1) S.C. 340; A.I.R. 1992 S.C. 840). A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or merely possible doubt, but a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense. It is must grow of the evidence in the case. If a case is proved perfectly, it is argued that it is artificial; if a case has some flaws inevitable because human beings are prone to err, it is argued that it is too imperfect. One wonders whether if the meticulous hypersensitivity for eliminate a rare innocent from being punished, many guilty persons must be allowed to escape. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is a guideline, not a fetish. (Inder Singh and Anr. Vs. State of (Delhi Admn.) reported at AIR 1978 S.C. 1091). Vague hunches cannot take place of judicial evaluation. A judge does not preside over a criminal trial, merely to see that no innocent man is punished. Judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not escape. Both are his public duties. Per Viscount Simon in Stirland V/s. Director of Public Prosecution, 1994 AC (P.C.), 315 quoted in State of U.P. V/s. Anil Singh JT. 1988 (3) SC 491; A.I.R. 1988 S,.C. 1998. FIR No. 102/97 Page No.18/21 19
Doubts would be called reasonable if they are free from a zest for abstract speculation. Law cannot afford any favorite other than truth.
In Visveswarn Vs. State reported at 2003 Rajdhani Law Reporter 350 (SC), Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has ruled that in a criminal trial, duty of the courts is not to let off criminals on petty discrepancies and minor contradictions. They must show responsibility. Ground realities must be appreciated. Accused be not allowed the benefit of defective investigation. Prosecution lapses cannot be allowed to become escape route of criminals. If there is sufficient proof of guilt by border probability, court must ignore technical objections.
19. The testimonies of prosecution witnesses more particularly PW3 namely Sh Mahesh Kaushik, PW4 Sh Bharat Singh and PW5 Sh Ram Krishan clearly establishes on record that the present accused had joined on the post of peon on the basis of appointment letter Ex PW1/A and worked there for quite sometime and subsequently remained absent from his duty. Nothing material could be elicited during cross examination of those witnesses by the accused so as to create any doubt on their testimonies or to disbelieve them. Similarly, IO namely Retd. SI Satya Dev examined as PW8 during trial, has also successfully withstood the test of cross examination and has supported the case of prosecution mostly on all material points. Although, he admitted that he did not record the statement of Deputy Director (Education) during investigation but same is totally immaterial. It is FIR No. 102/97 Page No.19/21 20 nowhere mandatory requirement of law to record the statements of all prosecution witnesses during investigation. The only object of recording the statement U/s 161 Cr.PC during investigation is that the accused should come to know about the statement given by such witness and nothing more than that.
20. It is nowhere the case of accused that the prosecution witnesses more particularly PW1 to PW5 had any kind of enmity with him to depose falsely against him during trial. The accused has not taken any defence during cross examination of prosecution witnesses as to why he would have been falsely implicated in this case. It is nowhere the case of accused that he never joined on the post of peon in Sarvodya Vidyalya no. 2, Keshav Puram, Delhi during the relevant period on the basis of appointment letter Ex PW1/A. It is also not the defence of accused that Ex PW1/A is a genuine document or that he never used any forged document as genuine one or did not dishonestly induce the principal of Sarvodaya Vidyalaya for providing him job on the post of peon as such. The accused has also not come forward with any plea as to what was he doing during the relevant period. In case, the accused did not join on the post of peon in aforesaid school on the basis of forged letter Ex PW1/A, he should have brought on record relevant record in order to show that he was carrying on any particular occupation/profession/business during the relevant period and had nothing to do with the post of peon in said school at that time.
FIR No. 102/97 Page No.20/21 21
21. In the light of aforesaid discussion, Court is of the view that prosecution has been successfully able to bring home the guilt of accused in respect of offences U/s 420/471 IPC by proving beyond doubt that the accused had used the forged appointment letter Ex PW1/A as genuine one in the office of Principal of Sarvodaya Vidyalaya no. 2, Keshav Puram, Delhi and dishonestly induced the principal of the said school to give posting to him as peon on the basis of said forged appointment letter which would not otherwise have been given to him in case said forged appointment letter would not have been produced by him. Consequently, the accused namely Vijay Parsad is convicted in respect of offences U/s 420/471 IPC.
Announced in open Court (VIDYA PRAKASH)
Dated: 29.03.2012 Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate1
Rohini, Delhi.
FIR No. 102/97 Page No.21/21