Delhi District Court
Sh. Ravi Raj @ Ravi Kumar vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 30 November, 2021
IN THE COURT OF MS. CHARU AGGARWAL
ADDITIONAL SESSION JUDGE-02: CENTRAL
DISTRICT: TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI.
CNR No. DLCT01-014807 2019
Cr. Rev. No. 83/2019
Registration No. 689/19
IN THE MATTER OF:-
Sh. Ravi Raj @ Ravi Kumar
S/o Sh. Tej Narain Parsad @
Deep Narain Parsad
R/o Vill. Basuli,
Police Station Pipra Bazar,
Post office Simariya,
Distt. Sapaul,
Bihar. ..... Revisionist
VERSUS
Govt. of NCT of Delhi.
Through its Secretary,
Delhi. ....... Respondent
Date of Institution : 31.10.2019
Date of Decision : 30.11.2021
JUDGMENT
1. The present revision petition u/s 397 Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred as "Cr.P.C."), is directed against the order dated 31.07.2019 passed by Metropolitan Magistrate 03, Central District, whereby charge u/s 417, 419 and 468 Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "IPC") was framed against the revisionist (accused before Ld. Trial Court) in case vide FIR No. 44/09 police station Rajender Nagar, New Delhi.
Ravi Raj @ Ravi Kumar Vs. State Digitally signed Page 1 of 5
by CHARU
CHARU AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2021.12.01
16:33:27 +0530
2. The allegations against the revisionist noted by Ld. MM in the impugned order are as follows: -
"The allegations of the prosecution are that in the year 2009, the accused fraudulently and dishonestly deceived the invigilator by impersonating himself as the actual candidate Roshan Chatruvedi in the All India Medical Centre/Pre Dental Entrance Examination 2009 and committed forgery by making forged signature of the said candidate on attendance sheet in examination Hall intending to be used for the purpose of cheating."
3. Ld. counsel for revisionist has argued that as per the contents of the chargesheet itself, no offence u/s 417/468 IPC is made out but the allegations discloses commission of offence only u/s 419 IPC. It is submitted that one of the essential ingredient to attract offence u/s 415 IPC, punishable u/s 417 IPC, is that the accused should have deceived and induced someone, but in this case chargesheet is completely silent on the point to whom the accused has deceived and induced, therefore, one of the essential ingredient of Section 415 IPC is missing, hence, as per Ld. counsel, Trial Court has erroneously framed charge u/s 417 IPC against the revisionist.
4. Similarly, it is argued in regard to Section 468 IPC that there is no allegations against the accused that he forged any document or electronic record for the purpose of cheating. Ld. counsel submitted that as per the chargesheet itself, accused was Digitally signed Ravi Raj @ Ravi Kumar Vs. State by CHARU Page 2 of 5 AGGARWAL CHARU Date:
AGGARWAL 2021.12.01 16:33:49 +0530 authorised by Sh. Raushan to put his signatures on the answersheet, therefore, as per own case of the prosecution, accused had permission/legal authority from actual candidate Sh. Raushan to put his signatures on the answersheet, therefore, no offence u/s 468 IPC is also made out.
5. Ld. APP has argued that the Ld. Trial Court has rightly framed the charge u/s 417/419/468 IPC against the accused as the material on record prima-facie discloses commission of offence under the said provisions.
6. I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for revisionist as well as Ld. APP for State.
7. The arguments of Ld. counsel that the chargesheet does not disclose to whom the accused had deceived and induced, has no force, since as per the allegations in the chargesheet, accused has tried to deceive and induced the invigilator as well as the examination Board, to believe that revisionist is the same person who was authorised to give examination. As per the explanation attached with Section 415 IPC, dishonest concealment of fact is deception within the meaning of this provision. As per the chargesheet, the accused has dishonestly concealed the factum of his identity from the invigilator which prima-facie shows commission of offence u/s 415 IPC punishable u/s 417 IPC.
8. The accused is also aggrieved by framing of charge u/s 468 IPC upon him by the Ld. Trial Court. Ld. counsel has argued that accused has not forged any document or electronic record since he had legal authority from Sh. Raushan, genuine candidate, to put his signatures on the answersheet or on other related documents, but this Court does not agree with this submissions of Ld. counsel since the lawful authority given by Sh. Raushan to Digitally signed Ravi Raj @ Ravi Kumar Vs. State CHARU by CHARU Page 3 of 5 AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2021.12.01 16:34:12 +0530 accused to put his signatures was not for lawful purpose but it was in order to deceive or induce the invigilator as well as the examination Board. To the mind of this Court, no person can authorise other person to put his signatures for any purpose, be it lawful or illegal, hence, the Ld. Trial Court has rightly framed the charge u/s 468 IPC against the accused.
9. The revisionist has also raised finger on the order dated 21.11.2014 whereby the Ld. Trial Court took cognizance into the matter. It is submitted that the alleged offence pertains to the year 2009 but the Ld. Trial Court took the cognizance into the matter in the year 2014 for the offence u/s 419 IPC which prescribes punishment upto three years, therefore, taking of cognizance by Ld. Trial Court almost after five years of the alleged offence is bad in law. This contention of the revisionist again has no merits since the chargesheet filed by the prosecution was also u/s 420 IPC which is punishable upto seven years for which there is no limitation prescribed for taking cognizance. Otherwise also, if revisionist was aggrieved by the order dated 21.11.2014, then he should have taken appropriate steps at appropriate time but now after almost five years (revision was filed in October, 2019) when the charge has also been framed upon the accused, he cannot be allowed to agitate the issue of cognizance at this stage in the present proceedings.
10. In view of above discussion, this Court finds no infirmity in the impugned order as the same has been passed by the Ld. Trial Court after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case. Impugned order whereby charge was framed against the revisionist(accused) is accordingly maintained. The present revision is hereby dismissed.
Ravi Raj @ Ravi Kumar Vs. State Digitally signed
by CHARU
Page 4 of 5
CHARU AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2021.12.01
16:34:31 +0530
Trial Court Record be sent back to the concerned court alongwith copy of this order.
Revision file be consigned to record room.
Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date: 2021.12.01
16:34:44 +0530
Announced in the open court (Charu Aggarwal)
on 30.11.2021 ASJ-02/Central
Distt./THC/Delhi
Ravi Raj @ Ravi Kumar Vs. State Page 5 of 5