Delhi District Court
State vs Ravinder Singh Mehta & Ors) on 24 September, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SH. LOKESH KUMAR SHARMA
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE (SFTC) :
DWARKA COURTS : NEW DELHI
CNR No: DLSW010104982017 and
CNR No: DLSW010105052017
U/s: 420/465/120B IPC
PS: Vikaspuri
(In Case no. 72347/2016,
FIR No: 379/99, U/s: 420/465/120B IPC
State v/s Ravinder Singh Mehta & Ors)
CA No: 289/2017
Ravinder Singh Mehta
S/o Late Sukhchain Singh
R/o: FA33, Third Floor,
Shivaji Enclave, New Delhi - 110027
....APPELLANT
Versus
1. The State
2. Gopal Paharia
S/o Late P.R.Paharia
R/o: C55, Gujrawala Apartments,
Vikaspuri, New Delhi.
....RESPONDENT(s)
AND
CA No: 290/2017
Balwan Singh
S/o Late Ganga Ram
R/o: FA33, Third Floor,
Shivaji Enclave, New Delhi - 110027
....APPELLANT
CA No: 289/2017 and 290/2017 Page 1 of 58
Versus
1. The State
2. Gopal Paharia
S/o Late P.R.Paharia
R/o: C55, Gujrawala Apartments,
Vikaspuri, New Delhi.
....RESPONDENT(s)
Date of Institution : 30.08.2017
Judgment reserved on : 17.09.2022
Date of Decision : 24.09.2022
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of two appeals bearing no. CA: 289/2017 and 290/2017 titled as Ravinder Singh Mehta v/s State and Balwan Singh v/s State.
2. The present appeals have been preferred by appellants against the judgment dated 29.07.2017, passed by the Court of Sh. Gajender Singh Nagar, ld. MM04, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, in case FIR No: 379/1999, State v/s Ravinder Singh Mehta etc., PS Vikaspuri, vide which, appellants were convicted for offence(s) u/s 120B, 465 r/w Sec. 120B IPC and 420 r/w Sec. 120B IPC and subsequently were sentenced to undergo RI for a period of one year for offence u/s 120B IPC, RI for a period of 18 months for offence 420 IPC r/w Sec. 120B IPC and RI for a period of one year for offence u/s 465 r/w Sec. 120B IPC and both of them were further sentenced to pay CA No: 289/2017 and 290/2017 Page 2 of 58 compensation of Rs. 3,50,000/ each (totaling Rs. 7 lakhs) to the complainant/ victim Gopal Paharia and in default of payment of compensation, they were further directed to undergo SI for a period of six months.
3. Feeling aggrieved from the above said judgment and subsequent order on sentence, the appellants had preferred the present appeal on the following amongst other grounds :
(a) That the impugned order/ judgment was contrary to the facts of the present case and ld. Trial Court had not applied its judicious mind while passing the said order/ judgment;
(b) That the ld. Trial Court had failed to appreciate the material contradictions in the testimonies of witnesses examined by the prosecution, more particularly, the testimony of complainant Gopal Paharia suffered from material contradictions which had totally demolished the case of prosecution. Even the testimonies of PW2 Sh. Yogesh Bajaj, PW3 Sh. O.N.Rattanpal, PW4 Sh Hoti Lal Paharia and PW6 Sh. Harminder Singh Talwar, were not to be considered by the ld. Trial Court, as they were stated to be not reliable and believable, as all of them were interested witnesses, being business partner, friend, brother and employee of the complainant.
CA No: 289/2017 and 290/2017 Page 3 of 58(c) It has been contended that conviction of appellants was based solely on the oral testimony of witnesses without any cogent and direct evidence in this regard and as such the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt against the appellants because the truck in question was never recovered either from the possession or at the instance of either of the appellants.
(d) It has also been contended that ld.Trial Court had ignored the cardinal principle of law that where two views are possible, then the view favoring the accused has to prevail. In this regard, reliance has also been placed by appellant on the citation titled as Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v/s State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116.
(e) It has also been contended that ld. Trial Court had passed the impugned order in a hurriedly manner without appreciating the facts of present case, as the case was transferred to the ld. Trial Court on 23.05.2017, from the Court of Sh. Sushil Kumar, the then ld. MM, as he had recused himself from this case on 24.03.2017.
(f) It has also been contended that wrong questions beyond evidence were put by ld. Trial Court to the appellants during recording of their statements under Section 313 CrPC, which shows that ld. Trial Court had not appreciated the facts CA No: 289/2017 and 290/2017 Page 4 of 58 correctly and passed the impugned order without properly understanding and appreciating the evidence available on record.
(g) It has also been contended that ld. Trial Court had failed to take into consideration the improvements made by complainant in his statement recorded before the Court when compared to the FIR as well as his statement recorded u/s 161 CrPC.
(h) It has also been contended that ld. Trial Court had grossly failed to appreciate that the undertaking Ex. PW3/A, itself is doubtful and self contradictory, as it was not clear as to who had got prepared the said undertaking and when it was prepared. Even from the evidence placed on record before the ld. Trial Court, it was not clear as to when the witnesses had signed the said undertaking. Even otherwise, no custody of the truck was transferred through the said undertaking and as per the same, the custody of truck had allegedly remained with appellant Ravinder Singh Mehta since 10.06.1998.
(i) It has also been contended that ld. Trial Court had failed to observe that undertaking did not bear the signature of appellant Ravinder Singh Mehta and thus he could not have been held guilty on the basis of said undertaking. It was also contended that ld. Trial Court had not appreciated the fact that complainant himself was not sure as to when the stamp paper for CA No: 289/2017 and 290/2017 Page 5 of 58 executing the said undertaking was purchased or when it was prepared or who had got it attested from Notary Public and moreover there was an alteration/ cutting on the date of execution of said undertaking, which proved that forgery was committed by complainant himself to falsely implicate the appellants.
(j) Ld. Trial Court had grossly erred in relying upon the undertaking which was nothing but a forged piece of document created by complainant in connivance with another witness Sh. O.N.Rattanpal, who had put his details and signatures upon the said undertaking Ex. PW3/A and even the prosecution had failed to examine the notary public and stamp vendor as witnesses in this case to save the complainant, being the author and perpetrator of the forged document. It has also been emphasized that stamp paper was allegedly purchased on 15.07.1998, and was attested on 15.07.1998, though, in his cross examination, the complainant had categorically stated that undertaking Ex. PW3/A was prepared and sent to the appellant for his signatures on 14.07.1998, whereas, the stamp paper was apparently showing to have been purchased on 15.07.1998.
(k) It has also been contended that ld. Trial Court had wrongly observed while passing the impugned judgment that ld. Counsel for appellants had argued that witness from DFC had stated that there was no default in payment of installments till 2001, thus the very premise for filing the civil case against the CA No: 289/2017 and 290/2017 Page 6 of 58 appellant and present case i.e., non payment of installment by the accused would not have arisen. It has also been contended that the same was never the case of appellants, nor, it was argued before ld. Trial Court.
(l) It has also been contended that ld. Trial Court had failed to appreciate the fact that admittedly no documents were prepared or executed when alleged delivery of truck was made on 10.06.1998, hence, there was no inducement or fraud when the alleged custody of truck was given to the appellant. It has also been contended that ld. Trial Court had failed to appreciate that even if the case of prosecution was taken entirely on its face value, then also only a civil wrong was committed, as the complainant had claimed to sell the hypothecated truck to the appellant for a market value of Rs. 3,45,000/, out of which complainant had claimed to have received Rs. 72,000/ and appellant Ravinder Singh Mehta was supposed to pay remaining amount of Rs. 2,73,000/ for which he had agreed to pay the remaining installments to DFC and as per the complainant, appellant had failed to pay the installments.
(m) It has also been contended that on the very first page of impugned order, the date of commission of offence was mentioned as 1999, whereas, the complainant and Sh. Yogesh Bajaj had claimed to have delivered the truck on 10.06.1998, however, other witnesses Sh. Harminder Singh Talwar, had CA No: 289/2017 and 290/2017 Page 7 of 58 deposed to have handed over the keys of truck to appellant on 10.06.1999, which itself shows that the witness was not reliable and was not even aware about the year of incident. Even otherwise, the said witness had claimed to have delivered the keys of truck to the appellant after taking the same from Yogesh Bajaj, however, neither any receipt of handing over possession of the truck, nor, any possession letter has been proved by the prosecution.
(n) It has also been contended that ld. Trial Court had oversighted the important aspect of settlement deed Ex. PW1/D, which was voluntarily executed by complainant with the appellant and complainant himself had filed the same in the Court vide which he had admitted that due to some misunderstanding, criminal prosecution against appellants was initiated and it was also mentioned in the said settlement deed that in case, the complainant had pursued the case against appellant after the settlement deed, then, it shall be treated as null and void.
(o) It has also been contended that complainant had denied the suggestion that he had fought any assembly election against father in law of appellant, however, there is a record available to prove that complainant had contested the election in the year 1998 as an independent witness and being defeated in CA No: 289/2017 and 290/2017 Page 8 of 58 the said election, he had developed grudge and enmity against the appellant and implicated him in a false case to settle the score.
(p) It has also been contended that ld. Trial Court had ignored the material evidence and contradictions in the testimony of witnesses and complainant had claimed that Yogesh Bajaj was his partner and was looking after his business, whereas, Yogesh Bajaj had denied the same. It was also stated that complainant had admitted that he had lodged complaints against Yogesh Bajaj for criminal breach of trust. It was also pointed out that even as per the complainant, his truck was with Yogesh Bajaj at the relevant period of time which was recovered by him with the help of police officials and on careful perusal of evidence, it was revealed that since DFC had initiated the process to seize the truck due to default made by the complainant, it was Yogesh Bajaj and complainant who in connivance with each other had dismantled the truck somewhere,
(q) It has also been contended that truck was never transferred in the name of appellant and rather it had remained in the custody of Yogesh Bajaj, who was the guarantor of the complainant in DFC loan and since the complainant had defaulted in payment of loan to DFC, he had dismantled the truck and shifted the onus upon the appellant to save himself from the legal action.
CA No: 289/2017 and 290/2017 Page 9 of 58(r) It has also been contended that ld. Trial Court had wrongly drawn inference by relying upon testimony of complainant and his friend regarding the aspect of handing over of the keys of truck to appellant and taking away of truck by him with his driver, had remained unrebutted. Though the said witnesses had claimed to have delivered the keys of truck to the appellant after taking the same from Yogesh Bajaj, but neither any receipt of handing over the possession of truck to appellant, nor, any possession letter has been proved on record by the prosecution.
(s) It has also been contended that ld. Trial Court had wrongly placed reliance upon the document Ex. PW1/C which was the letter purportedly written by appellant Ravinder Singh Mehta, to complainant on 10.06.1998 and 15.06.1998, though, the prosecution had failed to prove those letters, as they were never sent to forensic lab for comparing the handwriting of appellant.
(t) It has also been contended that ld. Trial Court had wrongly and illegally relied upon the letters Ex. PW1/C, as the said letters were bearing purported signature of appellant Ravinder Singh, however, the similarity in signatures on Ex. PW1/C, letters dated 10.06.1998 and 15.06.1998 as well as undertaking Ex. PW3/A revealed that the said documents were CA No: 289/2017 and 290/2017 Page 10 of 58 signed by the same person, who had signed the undertaking Ex. PW3/A. (u) It has also been contended that ld. Trial Court had erred in holding that coappellant Balwan Singh had not only put signatures of appellant on undertaking dated 15.07.1998, rather he had also put signatures of appellant on letters dated 10.06.1998 and 15.06.1998. It has also been contended that it was very easy to get the letter heads as used in Ex. PW1/C printed and one could have easily fabricated the same with the help of some handwriting expert, however, prosecution had not proved those letters, hence, no such suggestion was given by the defence qua the same. Even the contents of said letters were contradictory, as Sh. O.N.Rattanpal claimed to have handed over the same to the complainant during the first week of July 1998, whereas, the contents of said letters were reproduced by the complainant in his letter dated 15.06.1998, addressed to SHO.
(v) It has also been contended that ld. Trial Court had wrongly held at page no. 16 of the impugned judgment of case in hand, that after taking delivery of the truck, appellant had got executed a forged undertaking by making his employee/ co appellant Balwan Singh to put his forged signature on the document. The intention of appellant could also be gathered from the fact that prior to filing of the civil suit by complainant, neither appellant Ravinder Singh Mehta, nor, appellant Balwan CA No: 289/2017 and 290/2017 Page 11 of 58 Singh had clarified it to the complainant that undertaking was not bearing the signature of accused Ravinder Singh Mehta.
(w) It has also been contended that ld. Trial Court had also committed blunder while holding at page no. 17 of the impugned judgment of proving the existence of letter dated 03.06.1999, and subsequent filing of civil suit by complainant against appellant due to his default in making payment to DFC, which clearly shows that after taking delivery of the truck, appellant had made default in making payment of installments, thereby causing loss to the complainant.
(x) It has also been contended that ld. Trial Court had wrongly observed while passing the impugned judgment that both the appellants had acted in complicity with each other to cheat the complainant by taking the delivery of truck under dishonest intention and in furtherance of their criminal conspiracy, coappellant Balwan Singh had forged the signatures of appellant Ravinder Singh on the undertaking, whereas, actually, the fact was that complainant and Yogesh Bajaj were defaulters in DFC and vide letter dated 03.06.1999, DFC was inclined to repossess the truck on 16.02.1998 itself, which suggested that both of them had hidden the truck and might have dismantled the same, so that DFC could not repossess the same.
CA No: 289/2017 and 290/2017 Page 12 of 58(y) Lastly it was contended that ld. Trial Court had wrongly held that all the offence(s) as alleged against the appellants were made out against them, rather, it has been crystal clear after careful examination of evidence led by prosecution that no forgery whatsoever had been committed by appellants as no document was prepared by them, nor, they had participated in preparation of any forged document. Even no wrongful gain was made to appellants nor there was any inducement made by appellants to the complainant causing him any wrongful loss, as was required to be proved under Section 420 IPC.
(z) In addition to the aforesaid grounds, a plea was also taken by appellant Balwan Singh that he had scribed the name of Ravinder Singh on some pages at the instance of complainant who had told him that he would get it signed from Ravinder Singh later.
Hence, a prayer has been made to reverse the findings of ld. Trial Court and acquit the appellants or in the alternatively to release appellants on probation, as per the provision of Section 360 CrPC r/w Sec. 4 of the Probation of Offender's Act.
4. Briefly stated the fact that had given rise to the filing of present appeals are succinctly stated as under : CA No: 289/2017 and 290/2017 Page 13 of 58 That on 13.04.1999, the respondent no. 2 (hereinafter referred to as complainant), had given a complaint against appellants (hereinafter referred to as accused persons), wherein, he had stated that he was the owner of TATA truck model 2213, 10 tyres, bearing registration no. DL1GB1246, which was got financed from Delhi Financial Corporation on 29.02.1996 and he had also paid 21 instalments thereof.
It was stated further that on an undertaking furnished on 15.07.1998, by accused Ravinder Singh Mehta, the custody of the aforesaid truck was transferred in his favour and few blank transfer forms were also signed by the complainant and possession of said truck was already handed over on 10.06.1998. As per that undertaking, accused Ravinder Singh Mehta was supposed to pay the remaining instalments of DFC, which he had failed to pay and when the complainant had filed a civil suit against him, then he had denied his undertaking filed before the Court. Hence, it was apparent that right from the beginning of the transaction, accused Ravinder Singh Mehta had acted dishonestly with a view to cheat the complainant and ultimately he had also succeeded in his nefarious activities and thus there was a serious apprehension, that the said truck was being misused for illegal purposes by accused Ravinder Singh Mehta, which was further going to create charges regarding the said truck and could have further played for by misusing the blank paper/ forms thereby involving other persons.
CA No: 289/2017 and 290/2017 Page 14 of 585. On this typed complaint, the present FIR in question was got registered at Police Station Vikaspuri, accused Balwan Singh was initially declared Proclaimed Offender and was granted bail later on. Accused Ravinder Singh Mehta was also released on bail by the Court and after completion of investigation of the present case, charge sheet was filed before the Court on 03.05.2002.
6. Accused persons were summoned and they had also duly appeared to contest the case on merits. On 25.02.2010, charge for offence(s) u/s 120B r/w Sec. 420, 465, 34 IPC and in the alternative, charge for offence(s) u/s 406/465/34 IPC was framed against both accused persons, by the then ld. MM Sh. Gaurav Rao. However, framing of charges under the aforesaid sections were challenged by both the accused persons before the Court of Sessions, by way of criminal revision no. 63/2010, which was disposed of by the Court of Sh. M.R.Sethi, the then ld. ASJ, West, vide his order dated 03.07.2010, and while observing that since the charges were also framed for offences, for which, no order on charge was passed, against the accused persons, hence, the same were liable to be set aside. In view of these observations of ld. Sessions Court, the charges were reframed against both accused persons on 20.07.2011, by Sh. Hemraj, the then ld. MM and charge for offence(s) u/s 120B IPC, 465 r/w Sec. 120B IPC, 420 r/w Sec. 120 IPC was framed against both CA No: 289/2017 and 290/2017 Page 15 of 58 accused persons to which they had pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
7. In order to prove its case against both accused persons beyond any reasonable doubt, the prosecution had examined 13 witnesses in all and after closure of prosecution evidence, statements of both accused persons under Section 313 CrPC were recorded, wherein, they had denied all the allegations except those which were either specifically admitted to be correct by them or were purely a matter of record, accused persons had denied the rest as wrong and incorrect. They had stated that they were innocent and were falsely implicated in this case.
8. After appreciation of testimony of witnesses available on record, ld. MM vide impugned judgment was pleased to hold both the accused persons guilty and convicted them for offence(s) u/s 120B IPC, 465 r/w Sec. 120B IPC and 420 IPC r/w Sec. 120B IPC and vide aforesaid order on sentence, the sentence was awarded to them which were challenged by the accused persons.
9. Feeling aggrieved from the aforesaid findings of ld. MM, both the accused persons had challenged their conviction and sentence before this Court by way of present appeals.
CA No: 289/2017 and 290/2017 Page 16 of 5810. I have heard Sh. Anil Sharma and Sh. Dipin Chaudhary, ld. Counsel(s) appearing for appellants (both accused persons) and Sh. Aditya Kumar, ld. Addl. PP for State/respondent no.1 and Sh. D.S.Paweria, ld. Counsel for respondent no. 2 (complainant), at length and have also examined the written submissions filed on their behalf on record.
11. In his written submissions filed on record before the Court, it has been pointed by Sh. D.S.Paweria, ld. Counsel representing the complainant that accused Ravinder Singh Mehta was a friend of complainant for the last more than 40 years and said relationship was also not denied by accused as well and thus the complainant had blind faith in him. He had also stated that custody of truck was handed over to accused Ravinder Singh only on the basis of that blind faith and later on accused had also executed an undertaking Ex. PW3/A in favour of complainant and the execution of said undertaking as well as handing over of the truck by the complainant through Sh. Yogesh Bajaj, has also been duly proved on record by the testimonies of PW2, PW3 as well as PW6.
He had also stated that there was an undertaking between accused Ravinder Singh Mehta and complainant, as is proved from the oral testimony of complainant and no cross examination of complainant was done on behalf of accused persons regarding deposition of his fact that PW Sh. Yogesh CA No: 289/2017 and 290/2017 Page 17 of 58 Bajaj used to operate his business and when the complainant had consulted accused Ravinder Singh being a family friend, the accused had offered to take custody of the truck and had also undertaken to execute Ex.PW3/A and later on taken the possession of truck in July 1998, through Sh. Yogesh Bajaj and this version of complainant remained unchallenged during the course of the trial.
However, it shall be pertinent to point out here itself that complainant in his complaint had cited the date of delivery of possession of truck to be 10.06.1998, but now in his written submissions, the date of delivery of possession of truck has been mentioned as July 1998.
Further it has been stated that accused Ravinder Singh Mehta had also promised to make the payment of further instalments to DFC and the said fact had also remained unchallenged and same was the position with regard to handing over of the letters dated 10.06.1998 and 15.06.1998, placed on record and collectively exhibited as Ex. PW1/C. Similarly, the fact that complainant had deposed that he had handed over the original RC of truck as well to the accused, had also remained unchallenged.
CA No: 289/2017 and 290/2017 Page 18 of 58So far as the delivery of truck to accused Ravinder Singh Mehta is concerned, ld. Counsel for complainant has relied upon the testimonies of PW2 and PW6 in this regard.
So far as the question regarding execution of undertaking and letters Ex. PW1/C is concerned, ld. Counsel has placed reliance on the testimony of PW3 Sh. O.N.Rattan Pal and had stated that in view of his examination and detailed cross examination, the said fact was duly proved by this witness.
Further it has been argued that Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act provided that fact admitted by the opposite party is not required to be proved on record. Further it has been stated that document Ex. PW3/A was executed with the connivance of accused Ravinder Singh Mehta, as no cross examination of witness was offered on the material evidence which amounted to an admission on the part of accused during judicial proceedings.
Further it has been submitted that minor contradictions appearing in the statement of witnesses carried no weight.
So far as the plea of settlement deed executed between the parties is concerned, it has been stated that said settlement was arrived between them as accused Ravinder Singh CA No: 289/2017 and 290/2017 Page 19 of 58 Mehta had undertaken to make payment of an amount of Rs. 3,75,000/ to the complainant and had also got prepared demand draft bearing no. 051773 from the Bank of Punjab, Rajouri Garden Branch, dated 08.07.2002 and hence the complainant had signed the said settlement but later on accused had refused to hand over the said DD to the complainant and thus lastly, it was argued that by exercising the powers vested in this Court by virtue of Section 165 of Indian Evidence Act, this Court could have called for the record from the concerned Bank in respect of demand draft dated 18.07.2002, which was allegedly got prepared by accused in favour of complainant.
It is further pertinent to mention here itself that on one hand, it has been stated that draft was prepared on 08.07.2002, but now the date has been changed to 18.07.2002.
12. Similarly, in their written submissions filed on record by appellants, material contradictions appearing in the testimonies of witnesses have been mentioned in detail along with errors committed by the ld. Trial Court while recording the statement of appellants under Section 313 CrPC.
13. While convicting the appellants for the offences committed by them, ld. MM was pleased to observe in para no. 24 of the impugned judgment which is reproduced herein below :
"24. ......CA No: 289/2017 and 290/2017 Page 20 of 58
1. It is categorically stated by PW2 Sh. Yogesh Bajaj that on 10.06.1998 accused Ravinder Singh came with 23 other persons, took delivery of the truck bearing no. DL1GB1246 which was registered in the name of complainant Gopal Paharia. In his cross examination PW Yogesh Bajaj confirmed that he had handed over the key of the truck to one Hariminder Singh Talwar, who had further handed over the key to accused. Testimony of this witness found support from the testimony of PW6 Harminder Singh Talwar, who stated that he had handed over the key of truck in question at the house of PW2 Yogesh Bajaj to accused Ravinder Singh Mehta. It is further stated that accused Ravinder Singh Mehta handed over the keys to his driver to take away the truck from there. Though, both these witnesses were cross examined at length, however, their testimonies on the aspect of handing over the key of the truck to accused Ravinder Singh Mehta and taking away of the truck by accused Ravinder Singh Mehta with his driver remained unrebutted. Thus, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt tht the possession of the truck bearing no. DL 1GB1246 belonging to complainant Gopal Paharia was handed over to accused Ravinder Singh Mehta.
ii. It is proved by PW7 Assistant Director of FSL, Madhuban, Karnal, Haryana, that the questioned signatures Q1 and Q2 on each page of Ex. PW3/A i.e. the undertaking purportedly to be of accused Ravinder Singh, were on examination found to be scribed by accused Balwan Singh as the same matched with the specimen handwriting of accused Balwan Singh which is Ex. S1 to S3. It is also opined that specimen writing of accused Ravinder Singh, which is Ex.S4 and S5 is not matching the questioned signatures. This witness was not cross examined depsite opportunity, hence the fact that the questioned signatures Q1 and Q2 were scribed CA No: 289/2017 and 290/2017 Page 21 of 58 by accused Balwan Singh is proved beyond reasonable doubt.
iii. The fact that point Q1 and Q2 are in the handwriting of accused Balwan Singh is not even disputed on behalf of the accused persons rather it is simply claimed that at point Q1 and Q2 name of accused Ravinder Singh was written by accused Balwan Singh and he never meant the same to be perceived as signatures of the accused Ravinder Singh. The following facts shows that the intention of accused Balwan Singh and Ravinder Singh was dishonest in putting the forged signatures of accused Ravinder Singh on the documents by accused Balwan Singh :
a) If accused Balwan Singh had only written the name of accused Ravinder Singh Mehta on both the pages of the undertaking then after ward he should have ensured that the undertaking would have been signed by accused Ravinder Singh Mehta.
b) The words "Ravinder Singh" is scribed on both the pages of undertaking at a place and in a style which sugest that the same was scribed as to be conceived as the signatures of the person executing the same. There were no brackets on both the sides of word "Ravinder Singh" to suggest that the same was written as name and not as signatures.
c) Accused Balwan Singh also stood as a witness of the said undertaking. In case the words "Ravinder Singh" on both the pages of the undertaking were scribed by him just as name of the executant then there was no need for him to put his signatures and name at the place of witness without the undertaking being signed by accused Ravinder Singh. The fact that despite knowing that the signatures were not put by accused Ravinder Singh, accused Balwan CA No: 289/2017 and 290/2017 Page 22 of 58 Singh signed as a witness in the undertaking clearly suggests that his intention was to pass on the forged signatures of accused Ravinder Singh, which were in fact scribed by him to be the genuine signatures of accused Ravinder Singh.
d) Complainant had filed a document on record as Ex. PW1/C two letters, one is dated 10.06.1998 and other one dated 15.06.1998 allegedly received by him from accused Ravinder Singh Mehta. From perusal of these two letters it appears that they are on the letter head of "Sh. Ravinder Singh", "fleet owner and transporter". These two letters are also bearing signatures on the bottom purportedly of accused Ravinder Singh. Though the undersigned is not an expert in comparing the handwriting but the similarity in the signatures on Ex. PW1/C i.e., letter dated 10.06.1998 and 15.06.1998 as well as the undertaking (Ex.PW3/A) which is proved to be forged by accused Balwan Singh is so glaring that one can observe the same by naked eyes that the signatures on letter dated 10.06.1998 and 15.06.1998 are put by the same persons who had scribed the signatures on undertaking dated 15.07.1998 (Ex.PW3/A) i.e. accused Balwan Singh.
Hence it is proved that accused Balwan Singh had not only put signatures of accused Ravinder Singh Mehta on undertaking dated 15.07.1998 (Ex.
PW3/A) rather he also put signatures of accused Ravinder Singh Mehta on letter dated 10.06.1998 and 15.06.1998. It is to be noted that no suggestion was given to the witness regarding genuineness or otherwise of these two letters by the defence counsel. From this fact it appears that accused Ravinder Singh Mehta used to put his forged signatures scribed by accused Balwan Singh on certain business documents with the dishonest intention to avoid liability.
CA No: 289/2017 and 290/2017 Page 23 of 58e) The genuineness and the belief of the complainant to assume that the said signatures were of accused Ravinder Singh is proved by the fact that initially complainant filed a civil suit against accused Ravinder Singh only when through the written statement of accused Ravinder Singh he came to know that the undertaking was not bearing genuine signatures of accused Ravinder Singh Mehta, he initiated the process of filing the present criminal case. Had the complainant aware since very beginning that the signatures were forged he would have straight away gone for the criminal case instead of filing civil case.
iv. The contention of Ld. Defence Counsel that delivery of the truck was effected on 10.06.1998 while the undertaking was executed only on 15.07.1998, hence it cannot be held that at the time of the delivery of the property the intention of accused Ravinder Singh Mehta was dishonest. The contention of ld. Defence counsel is not tenable due to following reasons :
a) PW1 complainant Gopal Paharia explained that the truck was delivered to the accused under an oral agreement and later on the undertaking was prepared.
b) It is well settled law as observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a number of cases that conspiracy is rarely hatched in the open. There need not be any direct evidence to establish the same. It can be a matter of inference drawn by the Court after considering whether the basic facts and circumstances on the basis of which inference is drawn have been proved beyond all reasonable doubt and that no other conclusion except that of the complicity of accused to have agreed to commit an offence is evident.
CA No: 289/2017 and 290/2017 Page 24 of 58c) it is established preposition of law that accused need not to make false pretense in express words, same may be inferred from all the circumstances including conduct of the accused, even his conduct after delivery of property can shows that his intention at the time of taking the delivery was dishonest. Further "intention" being a man's state of mind cannot possibly be proved by direct evidence, which can only be inferred, proved and gathered by the surrounding circumstances available on record. In the case in hand the fact that after taking delivery of the truck accused Ravinder Singh Mehta got executed a forged undertaking by making his employee/ coaccused Balwan Singh to put his forged signatures on the document clearly shows that intention of the accused Ravinder Singh Mehta was dishonest while taking the delivery of the truck. The intention of the accused can also be gathered from the fact that prior to filing of the civil suit by the complainant neither accused Ravinder Singh Mehta nor accused Balwan Singh clarified it to the complainant that undertaking is not bearing genuine signatures of accused Ravinder Singh Mehta. Thus, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that intention of accused Ravinder Singh Mehta was dishonest at the time of taking delivery of the truck.
v. The contention of ld. Defence counsel that the undertaking was not duly notarized as neither the executant nor any witness went to the office of Notary Public or signed his register, is also not of much consequence as it is the general pratice that persons execute a document and thereafter someone of them took the same to notary for registration, though this practice is not permissible or legal but simply due to this shortcoming it cannot be held that intention of accused Balwan Singh was not CA No: 289/2017 and 290/2017 Page 25 of 58 dishonest while putting signatures of accused Ravinder Singh Mehta on the undertaking.
vi. PW1/ complainant Gopal Paharia has duly proved on record a notice dated 03.06.1999 received by him from Delhi Financial Corporation, wherein it is written that vide notice dated 13.01.1999 possesson of his truck bearing no. DL 1GB1246 was to be taken on 16.02.1998.
Apparently the date of taking possession is incorrect it must be 16.02.1999 as the notice pursuant to which possession was supposed to be taken was dated 13.01.1999. It is further written in the said letter that due to payment made by complainant the order of taking possession of the truck was kept in abeyance. The presence of this letter sent by Delhi Financial Corporation clearly suggests that there were defaults in payment of instalments in the end/ beginning of year 1998 and 1999. Apparently PW8 who appeared from Delhi Financial Corporation was not aware about the factum of notice dated 03.06.1999 or notice dated 13.01.1999. By proving the existence of letter dated 03.06.1999 and subsequent filing of civil suit by the complainant against accused Ravinder Singh due to his default in making payment to DFC clearly shows that after taking delivery of the truck accused made default in paying the instalments thereby causing wrongful loss to the complainant."
14. In view of these observations of ld. MM, it becomes all the more necessary for this Court to discuss the testimonies of witnesses recorded by the ld. Trial Court in detail and for that purpose, the witnesses can be divided into two categories i.e., formal and material.
CA No: 289/2017 and 290/2017 Page 26 of 58FORMAL WITNESSES So first of all, I would deal with the testimonies of the formal witnesses which are as under :
PW4 Sh. Hoti Lal Paharia S/o Sh. P.R.Paharia, is the brother of present complainant, who had deposed that he was the elder brother of complainant and on 15.11.2000, he had gone with the police officials at the office of accused, from where one blue colour diary was recovered, which was containing 82 pages and same was seized by the police vide seizure memo Ex. PW4/A bearing his signatures at pt. A. The diary was placed on record as Ex. P1. He had also admitted his signatures on the seizure memo of certain documents as Ex. PW4/B. In his cross examination conducted by ld. Defence Counsel for accused, he could not remember the day, on which he had visited the office of accused with police officials and was stated to have reached there at the instructions of complainant, who was his brother, but had not gone through the contents of diary recovered from the office of accused, nor, he could remember if any of the accused was present at that time at the office, but had again taken a Uturn and stated that accused Ravinder Singh Mehta was present at his office.CA No: 289/2017 and 290/2017 Page 27 of 58
PW5 W/ASI Mumtaz, No. 4712D, was working as Duty Officer at Police Station Vikas Puri, on 24.08.1999, and on the instructions of SHO, she had registered the present FIR Ex. PW5/A and made an endorsement on the same as Ex. PW5/B. The witness was not cross examined by accused persons despite availing an opportunity in this regard.
Similarly PW8 Sh. K.K.Dhawan, Deputy Manager, Delhi Financial Corporation, had deposed that as per his record, the borrower of truck had paid regular instalments upto the year 2000 and remaining instalments were deposited by him in the month of December 2001, copy of ledger was placed on record as Ex. PW8/A. All the original documents pertaining to the said agreement arrived at between the complainant in this case and DFC were sent to the complainant vide post on 14.05.2002, after full and final settlement and receiving of the full amount by the Department and copy of register entry was placed on record as Ex. PW8/B. In his cross examination conducted by ld. Counsel for accused, he had admitted the fact that as per the record of DFC, first notice of default was issued to the borrower on 12.12.1997 and subsequent to that, the borrower had paid the loan amount and as per the record, final payment was made by the borrower on 03.12.2001.CA No: 289/2017 and 290/2017 Page 28 of 58
PW9 is Const. Ram Rattan, No. D2516, who had joined the investigation of this case with IO on 23.12.1999, when he was sent to the house of accused Ravinder Singh, who was found present at his house and was brought to the police station by the said witness, where his signatures were obtained on two papers and he had also signed the same as a witness. This witness was also not cross examined by accused persons despite availing an opportunity in this regard.
PW10 Const. Sanjay Dubey, No: 1436, was stated to be posted as Constable at Police Station Vikas Puri on 25.01.2000, when upon instructions of IO, he had collected the exhibits from malkhana and had deposited the same in CFSL, Kolkata.
During his cross examination conducted by ld. Counsel for accused, he had stated that he could not remember if IO had recorded his statement under Section 161 CrPC. All the formal suggestions were denied by him as wrong and incorrect.
PW11 is Inspr. Jaswant Singh, No. D1355, had deposed that on 24.08.1999, he was posted as Sub Inspector at Police Station Vikas Puri, when investigation of the case was handed over to him. After that he contacted the complainant and searched for the case property and accused. However, none of them was traceable. Thereafter he had also recorded the CA No: 289/2017 and 290/2017 Page 29 of 58 statements of Yogesh Bajaj and Sh. O.N.Rattan Pal. On 06.12.1999, he got transferred from Police Station Vikas Puri to East District and thus handed over the case file to MHC(R).
In his cross examination conducted by ld. Defence Counsel, he had stated that he had made queries from the complainant and had asked him to produce witnesses before him but he could not remember the date when he had made such query from the complainant. He had not recorded any statement of complainant and had only visited the house of accused in search of case property, but he could not remember the date of his visit. He had recorded the statement of Yogesh Bajaj on 06.12.1999, and statement of Sh. O.N.Rattanpal on 20.09.1999, at Police Station Vikas Puri. Formal suggestions were denied by him as wrong and incorrect.
PW12 Inspr. Sunil Kumar, No. D1/927, was the second IO of the case and had deposed that on 05.01.2000, when he was posted as Sub Inspector at Police Station Vikas Puri, further investigation of this case was assigned to him by the orders of SHO. He had received the file from MHC(R) and had examined the same.
On 22.01.2000, the complainant had handed over him an undertaking issued by accused Ex. PW3/A, which was taken into possession by him vide seizure memo Ex. PW12/A. CA No: 289/2017 and 290/2017 Page 30 of 58 On 25.01.2000, he had sent the specimen signatures Ex. PW7/B of accused Ravinder Singh along with above mentioned undertaking to FSL Kolkata for examination and on 14.05.2000, he had received the report from CFSL Kolkata, regarding the above stated documents which was placed on record as Ex. PW12/B. He had filed the said result in the Court on the very same day, when the complainant had requested the Court that the signature on the undertaking might have been done by the employee of accused, hence, with the permission of the Court, he had obtained the specimen signatures of Balwan Singh and thereafter on 02.06.2000, on the request of complainant made in this regard, the Court itself had sent those signatures of Balwan Singh and specimen signatures of Ravinder Singh along with aforesaid documents to FSL, Malviya Nagar for examination and on 22.07.2000, FSL, Malviya Nagar had sent its report to the Court, which was exhibited as Ex. PW7/D. Accused Balwan was not present in the Court on that day. He had formally arrested accused Ravinder Singh, who was on anticipatory bail and had also conducted his personal search.
Thereafter, search for accused Balwan Singh was also made, but since he was not traceable, hence, he was declared proclaimed offender by the Court. He had also seized the letter pads already exhibited as Ex. PW1/C and Ex. PW4/C, from the possession of accused Ravinder Singh and same were taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW4/B bearing his signatures at pt. X. CA No: 289/2017 and 290/2017 Page 31 of 58 He had also seized the diary containing account entries of accused Ravinder Singh vide memo already Ex. PW4/A. He had also recorded the statements of witnesses under Section 161 CrPC and had also searched the office and house of accused Ravinder Singh Mehta and after completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed by him in the Court. Accused persons were also correctly identified by him in the Court.
During his cross examination by ld. Defence Counsel, he had denied the formal suggestions put to him as wrong that he had never prepared the seizure memo at the time of seizure of undertaking and that is why it did not bear signature of complainant or that no specimen signature of accused Ravinder Singh Mehta was sent to FSL Kolkata by him, during his investigation and that he had never visited the house and office of accused Ravinder Singh. He could not recollect the date when he had visited the office and house of accused Ravinder Singh but it was stated to be somewhere in November 2000 only. Hoti Lal Paharia was stated to have accompanied him during the search of premises of accused. Other formal suggestions were denied by him as wrong and incorrect.
PW13 is SI Devender Singh, No. D718, had stated that on 08.01.2003, he was posted as Sub Inspector at Police Station Vikas Puri, when the case file of the present case was handed over to him, to attend the anticipatory bail application of CA No: 289/2017 and 290/2017 Page 32 of 58 accused Balwan Singh. On 06.02.2003, accused Balwan Singh was granted anticipatory bail by ld. Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari and on 04.06.2003, accused Balwan Singh had joined the investigation at Police Station, where his disclosure statement Ex. PW13/A was recorded by the witness and he was formally arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW13/B. He had also filed supplementary charge sheet before the Court on 08.06.2003.
During his cross examination conducted by ld. Counsel for accused, he had also denied all the formal suggestions put to him as wrong and incorrect.
PW7 is Sh. Harsh Vardhan, Assistant Director (Documents), FSL, Madhubhan, Karnal, Haryana, who had placed on record his report Ex. PW7/D along with documents sent to him with the specimen hand writing and signature. The document Ex. PW3/A was again exhibited as Ex. PW7/A and specimen signature and hand writings were exhibited as Ex.PW7/B and Ex. PW7/C respectively. This witness was not cross examined by both accused persons despite availing an opportunity in this regard.
MATERIAL WITNESSES The first and foremost important witness examined in this case by the prosecution was the complainant himself, who CA No: 289/2017 and 290/2017 Page 33 of 58 had been examined as PW1 and in his examination in chief, he had deposed that he was having a truck bearing no. DL1GB 1246, which was got financed from Delhi Financial Corporation in the year 1996 and for the initial two years, his friend namely Yogesh Bajaj was operating the said truck for transportation as they were unofficial partners. Thereafter he had consulted one person namely Ravinder Singh Mehta who was also in the transport business and was on family terms with the complainant. As the truck was hypothecated with DFC, hence, it could not be sold, then accused Ravinder Singh Mehta had offered to get the custody of said truck against an undertaking Mark X. Accused Ravinder Singh had taken the possession of said truck in July 1998, from Yogesh Bajaj from his office which was situated at Lawrence Road, even before executing the undertaking Mark X. At this stage it shall be pertinent to mention and point out here itself, that this deposition of the witness is quite contrary to the complaint forming genesis of the present case, as in the complaint, the complainant had categorically mentioned the date as 10.06.1998, when the delivery of possession of truck was handed over to the accused by him, however, as per this deposition, it was not the complainant himself but his unofficial partner Yogesh Bajaj, who had handed over the delivery of truck to accused Ravinder Singh Mehta and that too in the month of July 1998, instead of it being done on 10.06.1998.
CA No: 289/2017 and 290/2017 Page 34 of 58Further he had deposed that handing over of the possession of truck was only done to get its value assessed for the purpose of selling and as per the undertaking, all the remaining EMI(s) were supposed to be paid by accused Ravinder Singh to DFC directly. However, in the month of December 1998, he had received a notice from DFC citing the default in payment of instalments.
In his further examination in chief conducted on 30.01.2012, he had deposed further that after receiving the default notice from DFC, he had approached accused Ravinder Singh Mehta, who was also correctly identified by him and informed him about the said default. Two such notices were placed on record by him and were collectively exhibited as Ex. PW1/A. Thereafter again, he had received a notice and again approached the accused, but the accused had flatly refused to make any payment to DFC. Thereafter he had filed a civil suit bearing no. 292 of 1999, against the accused in Tis Hazari Courts, in which, accused had also appeared and filed his written statement stating therein that undertaking Mark X was not signed by him. Thereafter, he had made a complaint Ex. PW1/B to the police against accused Ravinder Singh Mehta. When the police did not register the FIR, then he had moved an application before ld. MM concerned under Section 156(3) CrPC and upon the orders of the Court, the FIR was got registered in this case.
CA No: 289/2017 and 290/2017 Page 35 of 58During investigation of this case, he was stated to have handed over the photocopy of terms loan agreement dated 29.02.1996, photocopy of RC of vehicle and photocopy of payment slips to DFC, which were placed on record as Mark Y, Z and A respectively. He had also handed over to the police, the letters written by accused Ravinder Singh Mehta to him, which were exhibited as Ex. PW1/C. The original RC was stated to have been handed over by him to the accused.
During the proceedings, other accused Balwan Singh was declared a PO. Thereafter accused Ravinder Singh Mehta had also entered into a settlement with him for withdrawal of complaint against both the accused persons and said settlement deed was exhibited on record by him as Ex. PW1/D bearing his signatures at pt. A. However, the said settlement was stated to have been failed due to nonpayment of agreed amount by the accused.
During his cross examination conducted by ld. Counsel for accused on 15.03.2012, he had stated that in the year 1996, he was having business of cement transportation from Rajasthan, however, the said transport business was temporary in nature and the said business was being run by him in the name and style of M/s Paharia Transport. Yogesh Bajaj was stated to be employed with MTNL, during the aforesaid period but was looking after his business and was supervising the same.
CA No: 289/2017 and 290/2017 Page 36 of 58The witness was stated to be having only one truck which remained in the possession of Yogesh Bajaj, who also used to park the said vehicle at his premises in Lawrence Road and as he and Yogesh Bajaj were unofficial partners but had denied that Yogesh Bajaj was doing the business illegally with him despite being a government servant. Again it was deposed that truck was handed over to accused by said Yogesh Bajaj at his instance on 10.06.1998, but no documents were signed or executed between the parties regarding the sale and delivery of the truck in question on the said date. He had admitted that as per document Mark Z, the fitness of vehicle was valid only upto 29.04.1998 and was never got renewed by him after its expiry. It was further deposed by him voluntarily to cover up his lapse, that since the vehicle was to be handed over to the accused, hence, its fitness was not renewed.
However, it shall be further pertinent to mention here itself that even if this explanation of witness is per se accepted to be correct, then also, it was not known to the accused that he was planning to sell his vehicle or transferring his possession either in April or May 1998, hence, it does not sound good for a prudent mind to say that fitness was not got renewed by him after its expiry as he was planning to transfer the possession of vehicle.
CA No: 289/2017 and 290/2017 Page 37 of 58It was further admitted by him that vehicle could not have been plied by him on road after expiry of its fitness. Yogesh Bajaj was also stated to be his guarantor in DFC for the loan but he had denied the suggestion that he himself had committed default in payment to DFC before June 1998. He had not given any statement of account regarding payment of monthly instalments to DFC either to the IO or to the Court. It was also admitted by him that he had also lodged criminal complaints dated 25.05.1998 and 13.06.1998, against said Yogesh Bajaj as well at Police Station Vikas Puri and had mentioned in the said complaints that the aforesaid Yogesh Bajaj had committed an offence of breach of trust qua him.
It was further admitted by him that in his complaint dated 13.06.1998, he had mentioned that he had recovered his truck from Yogesh Bajaj and had further volunteered that the truck was got recovered by accused Ravinder Singh Mehta himself. However, it was admitted by him that nowhere in his complaint dated 13.06.1998, he had mentioned the fact that truck was got recovered by accused Ravinder Singh Mehta from said Yogesh Bajaj. He had also denied the suggestion that possession of truck was retained by Yogesh Bajaj as the complainant himself had defaulted in making payment of the loan instalments to DFC. He could not admit or deny, if Yogesh Bajaj had made any such statement to the IO. It was also admitted by him that as per the contents of document Ex. PW1/A, the DFC was supposed CA No: 289/2017 and 290/2017 Page 38 of 58 to take possession of the truck on 16.02.1998 itself, however, due to subsequent payment made by him, action under Section 29 of SFC(s) Act, 1951, was kept in abeyance. It was further admitted by him that some installments were not paid by him before 16.02.1998, as he was stated to have suffered heavy losses in his business but he could not cite any exact date or month when accused Ravinder Singh was contacted by him after receiving the default notice Ex. PW1/A. However, again it was stated by him that he had contacted accused somewhere in June 1999 itself, which fact is again contrary to his own case, wherein, he had stated that custody of truck was handed over to accused on 10.06.1998 itself. He was stated to have also received one final notice from DFC Mark X1, after which, he had contacted the accused again but he could not remember the exact date of his having made the contact with the accused and further it was volunteered by him that he was contacting the accused regularly regarding receiving of notices by him, but the later had finally refused to make any payment. However, he could not tell the date when the accused had finally refused to make payment to the DFC.
One civil suit was stated to have been filed by him in the year 1999, in which accused Ravinder Singh had also filed his written statement, however, it was denied by him that since he was not having any evidence to prove his civil case against the CA No: 289/2017 and 290/2017 Page 39 of 58 accused, hence, he had changed the nature of case and had filed a criminal case against him.
Interestingly, he had stated that earlier he was not aware that the signatures appearing on the undertaking were not of accused Ravinder Singh Mehta and he was under the impression that signature on the undertaking Ex. PW3/A was of accused Ravinder Singh Mehta, only.
No documents including sale letter, cash receipt, delivery note and transfer document, were executed between the parties except the aforesaid undertaking. However, again, he had taken a Uturn and deposed that several documents were got signed from him by the accused at the time of execution of undertaking. All those documents were stated to be lying with accused Ravinder Singh, as same were one sided documents.
Undertaking Ex. PW3/A was stated to have been executed on 15.07.1998, however, it was admitted by him that there was an overwriting at pt. C on document Ex. PW3/A, which is nothing, but an overwriting with respect to the date of execution itself, wherein, date of 11.07.1998, which is also visible by a naked eye, was changed with pen to 15.07.1998, to match it with the date of purchase of stamp paper itself.
CA No: 289/2017 and 290/2017 Page 40 of 58He could not tell as to who had purchased the stamp paper, on which undertaking was executed, but again covered up this version by saying that probably it was purchased by accused Ravinder Singh himself. The said document Ex. PW3/A was stated to have been prepared at District Centre, Janakpuri, where he was also having his own office. The said undertaking was stated to have been got prepared by witness himself from a document writer at District Centre, Janakpuri and it was got attested by Balwan Singh from Notary Public at District Centre itself, as he had handed over the said undertaking to Balwan Singh, for getting the signature of accused Ravinder Singh Mehta thereon on 14.07.1998, itself, which was returned to him on the next day i.e., 15.07.1998. However, again, he had stated that document Ex. PW3/A was prepared on 14.07.1998, itself but it was notarized on 15.07.1998, after obtaining the signatures of accused Ravinder Singh Mehta.
It shall be pertinent to mention here itself, that this deposition of complainant is not only contradictory, but it also destroys his own case, that once the stamp paper in question itself was purchased on 15.07.1998, then the question of preparation of undertaking by him on 14.07.1998, did not arise at all and the material change in the date of execution as appearing at pt. C on Ex. PW3/A, also suggests that it was prepared even much prior to the date of purchase of stamp paper and later on, the date was manipulated on the same.
CA No: 289/2017 and 290/2017 Page 41 of 58Accused Balwan Singh and Advocate Sh.
O.N.Rattanpal were stated to have signed the document as witness on 15.07.1998, before the complainant in his office when it was already attested by Notary Public. It was again admitted by him that accused Ravinder Singh Mehta was not present at the time of attestation and the signatures of one L.R.Verma, Notary Public were stated to be there on Ex. PW3/A. The witness himself had not signed in the register of Notary Public as he had not gone there. He did not know if the witnesses had put their signatures in any register before the Notary Public or not. He could not tell the exact time of visit of Advocate Sh. O.N.Rattanpal, to his office on 15.07.1998, however, he was stated to have visited him during office hours only. It was also admitted by him that document Ex. PW1/D mentioned that due to some misunderstanding between the parties, present criminal prosecution was initiated by him. He had also admitted filing of said settlement deed in the Court of Sh. Sanjay Aggarwal, the then ld. MM, along with one application for recording of compromise and getting the said case disposed of/ compounded in favour of accused. The said application was placed on record as Ex. PW1/D1. However, he had denied the suggestion that he had asked accused Balwan Singh to write the name of accused Ravinder Singh Mehta at pt. D and E or that accused Balwan Singh had written the name of accused Ravinder Singh at pt. D and E on the said document at his instance. It was also denied by CA No: 289/2017 and 290/2017 Page 42 of 58 him that he had told Balwan Singh, that he would obtain signatures of accused Ravinder Singh at a later stage.
One Sh. Harvinder Singh Talwar, was stated to be known to him but had never worked with him as an employee. It was however admitted by him that he was having good relations with said Harvinder Singh Talwar, who also used to frequently visit him. However, again it was denied by him that Harvinder Singh Talwar, also used to work with him.
He had also further denied the suggestion that he had contested the elections as an independent candidate against late Mahinder Singh Sathi, father in law of the accused and had volunteered that though he had filed his nomimation but it was later on withdrawn by him after a compromise arrived between him and late Mahender Singh Sathi.
A suggestion regarding his defeat in elections and developing an enmity with family of accused was denied by him as wrong. Accused Ravinder Singh was stated to be known to him for the last about 30 years, but had denied the suggestion that he was not familiar with the signatures of accused Ravinder Singh.
Interestingly, the denial of this suggestion means that the witness had stated that he was well aware of and familiar CA No: 289/2017 and 290/2017 Page 43 of 58 with the signatures of accused Ravinder Singh, hence, it does not appeal to a prudent and sound mind, as to how he could not have identified the signature of accused Ravinder Singh appearing on the said document to be his genuine signatures.
Adv. Sh. O.N.Rattanpal, was stated to have handed over 2/3 documents which were given to him by accused Ravinder Singh, as he was common friend of complainant as well as accused Ravinder Singh. It was denied by him that truck in question, had already been dismantled much prior to 15.07.1998, as he had failed to pay instalments to DFC and was thus under a fear of seizure of his truck by DFC. It was also denied by him that DFC had initiated legal action against him prior to filing of civil suit against accused Ravinder Singh by him. However, he had admitted that he had filed a civil case against Oriental Insurance Company, wherein one Darshan Singh was also made a party along with Ravinder Singh and the said suit was dismissed. However, he did not know correctly about the civil case filed by him against accused Ravinder Singh Mehta. Lastly it was admitted by him that he had written number of letters to DFC, requesting them for grant of time to make payment, as he was facing financial difficulty as well as he had also filed a civil case.
PW2 is Sh. Yogesh Bajaj s/o Late O.P.Bajaj, who had stated that in the year 1998, he was residing at C1/115B, CA No: 289/2017 and 290/2017 Page 44 of 58 Lawrence Road, Delhi - 110035, and was working as Chief Sr. Supervisor in MTNL. Complainant as well as accused Ravinder Singh Mehta were known to him as friends. On 10.06.1998, accused Ravinder Singh Mehta along with two drivers came to his house and took possession of truck bearing no. DL1GB 1246, whose registered owner was the complainant, who had told him to hand over the possession of said truck to accused Ravinder Singh Mehta and accordingly, he had handed over the keys of said truck to accused Ravinder Singh Mehta. He himself was stated to be the guarantor in respect of the truck before DFC.
In his cross examination conducted by ld. Counsel for accused, he was stated to be working with MTNL since 1978 and complainant was stated to be known to him since 198283, with whom he was having family relations. Complainant was a politician but he could not say if complainant was engaged in any business from period 1996 till 1998, as he had no business relations with him.
Quite contrary to the version and claim of complainant, as per this witness, he had never looked after any business of complainant including transport, nor, he had ever entered into any kind of official or unofficial partnership with him.
CA No: 289/2017 and 290/2017 Page 45 of 58He was stated to be a guarantor in DFC, with respect to the truck loan of the complainant and sometimes the said truck used to be parked outside his house. It was though admitted by him that complainant had committed defaults in making payment of instalments to DFC and due to that reason, he had also retained the truck once with him.
Though he could not tell the exact date, but it was in the beginning of the year 1998, when the truck was taken by him when he was residing in a DDA Flat, but he was not having original or photocopy of documents with respect to the said truck at that time. The said truck was driven by the driver, who had parked it in his premises. He could not tell exactly as to whom, he had handed over the keys of truck, as there were four persons, who had come to his place and he had handed over the keys to one of them.
This deposition is further contradictory to the version of PW2 himself as deposed by him in his examination in chief, wherein, he had claimed to have handed over the keys of truck to accused Ravinder Singh Mehta.
He had admitted that inquiries were made from him by the police and his statement Ex. PW2/D1 was also recorded, wherein, he had stated to the police that he had handed over the CA No: 289/2017 and 290/2017 Page 46 of 58 keys of the truck to Harminder Singh Talwar, who had further handed over the same to accused Ravinder Singh Mehta.
On 22.07.2000, his statement Ex. PW2/D2 was again recorded by the police, wherein, he had stated to the police that he had handed over the keys to Harminder Singh Talwar, who in turn had handed over the same to accused Ravinder Singh Mehta, who in turn had handed over the keys to the driver. He had no knowledge, if complainant had lodged complaints on 23.05.1998 and 13.06.1998, respectively against him as well, for committing breach of trust, as he had never committed any such offence qua Gopal Paharia.
He did not remember, if any police official had ever visited his residence at the instance of the complainant for recovery of truck. It was also admitted by him that none of the police officials had visited his house to take the truck but he could not remember if he was on leave on that day or not. He had denied the suggestion that he had never handed over the truck to accused Ravinder Singh Mehta and he had no knowledge that the said truck had already been dismantled at Mayapuri, nor, he had any knowledge about the expiry of fitness of truck in the month of April 1998 itself, as he himself had never renewed the fitness of that truck. Some of these instalments were stated to have been deposited by him in DFC and sometimes by his son as well. Lastly he had denied the suggestion that he was deposing CA No: 289/2017 and 290/2017 Page 47 of 58 falsely at the instance of complainant being his friend to implicate the accused persons in the present matter.
PW3 is Sh. O.N.Ratan Pal S/o Late K.R.Ratan Pal, who had deposed that before September in the year 1998, he was residing at Shankar Garden, near Vikas Puri, and thereafter he had shifted his residence to Rohini at B6/131132, Sector 11, Rohini, New Delhi.
On 15.07.1998, he had signed as a witness on the undertaking given by Ravinder Singh Mehta which was Ex. PW3/A bearing his signatures at pt. A. He had signed the same after going through the same and after verifying from the accused regarding his having gone through it properly, and having understood and verified the contents of his undertaking, however, before his signatures, the document was already containing the signatures of accused Ravinder Singh Mehta and he had also collected two letters Ex. PW1/C dated 10.06.1998 and 15.06.1998 and one transport register and had given it to Gopal Paharia.
It shall be interesting to note and point out here itself that PW3 had introduced an altogether different case as that of the prosecution and if this version of the witness is to be believed, then accused Ravinder Singh Mehta was present at the time of his signing the document as a witness, whereas, as per the CA No: 289/2017 and 290/2017 Page 48 of 58 complainant, accused Ravinder Singh Mehta was not present at his office and he had handed over the undertaking to Balwan Singh for getting the same signed from accused Ravinder Singh Mehta and so far as having seen the accused Ravinder Singh signing the undertaking, as argued and contended on behalf of the complainant is concerned, this witness had only inquired from accused Ravinder Singh regarding his having understood the contents of the same and had categorically stated that the same was already carrying signatures of accused Ravinder Singh when he had signed the same.
During his cross examination, he was stated to be a practising Advocate in the year 1998 and complainant was his friend since 1980 and he was having family terms with him but had never represented the complainant as an Advocate in any case. He had no knowledge about the person who had prepared the undertaking Ex. PW3/A, however, the same was stated to have been prepared on the directions of complainant himself at District Centre, Janakpuri, where, he had gone on 15.07.1998, in the second half at about 3:004:00pm and had remained there for about 4045 minutes, where the complainant, Balwan Singh and one or two employees of complainant were also present. Nobody else was stated to be seen by this witness at the office of complainant and nobody had signed in his presence. Again, though he had stated that accused Ravinder Singh Mehta and anybody else had not signed in his presence and had volunteered CA No: 289/2017 and 290/2017 Page 49 of 58 that it was already signed by accused Ravinder Singh Mehta and Balwan Singh. Again he had stated that before putting his signatures on the document, he had inquired from accused Ravinder Singh about the contents of undertaking telephonically, however, he could not remember the telephone number on which he had contacted accused Ravinder Singh and perhaps it was a mobile number. The witness himself did not get the documents attested from Notary Public, nor, he himself had appeared before the Notary Public or he had signed in a register before Notary Public.
Complainant was stated to have asked him to collect letters Ex. PW1/C from accused Ravinder Singh, which he had collected from his residence and handed over the same to the complainant. Accused Ravinder Singh was stated to have not signed the letters Ex. PW1/C in his presence, as same were already lying signed. He could not tell as to where the undertaking was prepared on 15.07.1998, or as to who had purchased the stamp papers, on which the undertaking was prepared. Formal suggestions were denied by him as wrong and incorrect, including his false deposition before the Court being friend of complainant.
PW6 Sh. Harminder Singh Talwar, had stated that about 89 years back, he had handed over the keys of truck bearing no. 1746, to accused Ravinder Singh Mehta, who was CA No: 289/2017 and 290/2017 Page 50 of 58 correctly identified by him in the Court, but he could not remember the full registration number of the truck. Accused Ravinder Singh Mehta was stated to have passed over the keys of the truck to his driver and directed him to take the truck from Lawrence Road, after which the driver had taken away the truck.
This witness was cross examined by ld. APP for State, wherein, he had admitted that complete number of truck was DL1GB1246 and that he had handed over the keys of truck to accused Ravinder Singh on 10.06.1999.
Interestingly, the prosecution itself had contradicted its own case, as per which, the keys were now supplied on 10.06.1999 and not on 10.06.1998.
Further it was admitted by him that Yogesh Bajaj was also present at the time of handing over of the vehicle to accused Ravinder Singh and keys were handed over at the premises of Yogesh Bajaj situated at Lawrence Road.
However, it is interesting to note here that PW2 Yogesh Bajaj had no where taken the name of this person or had mentioned about his presence even at the time of alleged delivery of keys to accused.
CA No: 289/2017 and 290/2017 Page 51 of 58During his cross examination conducted by ld. Counsel for accused, he had denied the suggestion that on 10.06.1999, he was working with the complainant, who was stated to be known to him being a local politician. Again it was denied by him that twice he had taken the police along with him to the residence of Yogesh Bajaj to recover the possession of truck, but it was admitted by him that truck was in possession of Yogesh Bajaj. He had further denied that he had handed over the keys of truck to Yogesh Bajaj. The keys were stated to have been received by him, outside the flat of Yogesh Bajaj, when accused Ravinder Singh Mehta was also present there along with his driver. He was stated to have received the keys as per the instruction of complainant from Yogesh Bajaj and thereafter had handed over the same to Ravinder Singh Mehta but had not put his signatures on any agreement executed between the complainant and accused Ravinder Singh. Formal suggestions were denied by him as wrong and incorrect including the suggestion that the truck had already been got dismantled by the complainant at Mayapuri or he was deposing falsely at the instance of complainant being his employee during the relevant period.
15. After closure of the prosecution evidence, statements of accused persons were recorded, wherein, accused Ravinder Singh Mehta had stated that civil suit was filed against him by the complainant herein, in which he had filed written statement CA No: 289/2017 and 290/2017 Page 52 of 58 and after filing of the same, the complainant had not pursued the case, which was dismissed and even in the present case, settlement deed was executed, in which complainant had agreed to withdraw this case, as it was due to some misunderstanding that the present FIR was lodged by him. However, later on he had refused to follow the terms of settlement. Whereas, accused Balwan Singh had simply expressed his ignorance to most of the questions and had also replied to some as being matter of record.
16. Therefore, from the aforesaid discussion of the trial Court record, it becomes manifestly clear that the signatures of accused Ravinder Singh were not found present on the document forming the genesis of this case i.e., Ex. PW3/A, which was examined twice, by FSL Kolkata as well as by FSL Malviya Nagar, Delhi.
So far as the observations of ld. MM regarding appearance of same writing on Ex. PW1/C as was found present on Ex. PW3/A is concerned, I find myself in consonance with the findings of ld. MM. Even if it is presumed that said writing was of Balwan Singh, then also, if the same is compared with the specimen handwriting of accused Ravinder Singh, then the two do not find any match whatsoever. Even the witnesses who were stated to be well familiar with accused Ravinder Singh, had also failed to explain as to why they had not identified his signatures being those not of his.
CA No: 289/2017 and 290/2017 Page 53 of 58Though complainant had talked about having received a notice from DFC in December 1998 but he had not placed the same on record. However, he himself had placed on record, the settlement arrived between the parties as Ex. PW1/D and from the contents of the same, it is apparent that he had mentioned therein that owing to some misunderstanding between the parties, he had lodged the present FIR.
So far as the story of having arrived at a settlement for a consideration and accused having got prepared the bank drafts of the said amount and later on backing out from the said settlement, same has come up before the Court for the first time during his examination in chief and not prior to that. It is highly unbelievable that a person would have signed the settlement deed without actually having received the money and merely on the assumption that he would get the money, particularly, when the person who had allegedly assured him, was already facing trial as an accused in a criminal case lodged by him against that person.
It is also interesting to note that complainant himself had admitted that the validity of fitness of truck had already expired on 29.04.1998, then also, it is highly improbable for a prudent person to believe that accused Ravinder Singh Mehta, who is a professional transporter, would have agreed to purchase CA No: 289/2017 and 290/2017 Page 54 of 58 or to take the possession of the truck which was not pliable on road, from him.
It is further important to note that as admitted by complainant during his cross examination that there was a default in payment of instalments to DFC and he was fully aware of the fact that as long as loan on the vehicle existed, he was not allowed to dispose of the vehicle, but despite knowing that, he had gone ahead with the alleged deal with accused Ravinder Singh, which shows that infact it was the complainant, who had criminally breached the trust qua his financier DFC.
17. So far as observations made by ld. MM in the impugned judgment in para no. 24, as repeated above that it was a general practice for a person to put brackets before and after the name and writing appeared to be in the form of a signature are concerned, I do not find myself in agreement with this observation, as ld. MM himself had further gone ahead to observe that the practice was not recognized legally and it was not mandatory for any person to write his name only in the capital letters, rather it could have been written in the running hand as well. Moreover, it is to be seen that many persons write and sign in the same flow and style.
Ld. MM had also failed to take note of the improvements made by complainant during his examination in CA No: 289/2017 and 290/2017 Page 55 of 58 chief as well as stark contradictions appearing in his cross examination, while admitting the suggestion put to him on behalf of accused persons.
18. The arguments advanced on behalf of complainant that minor contradictions in the version of material witnesses do not dilate the case of prosecution does not hold water in it, as the contradictions cited and discussed above are not minor, rather they go to the very root cause of the case.
Even the date of execution of document itself had become suspicious, in view of the stance changed by the complainant during his cross examination and thereby putting the whole prosecution story in grave suspicion, for which the appellants are entitled to and deserve all the benefits arising out of it.
Even the nonexamination of the stamp vendor and the Notary Public had also proved fatal to the case of prosecution as neither the person who had purchased the stamp paper and had put his signatures in the register of stamp vendor, nor, the person who had presented the alleged settlement deed for its attestation before the Notary Public, could have been ascertained. However, this fact went unnoticed and unappreciated by the ld. Trial Court.
CA No: 289/2017 and 290/2017 Page 56 of 5819. However, ld. MM without appreciating the evidence in its correct perspective, had gone ahead to convict the appellants for the offence(s) which they had never committed. It is not the case of complainant that accused had approached him or had made any inducement to him to cheat him, rather he had stated that since he wanted to dispose of the vehicle, hence, he himself had contacted the accused, who had agreed to take the same for consideration, as mentioned in the said document Ex. PW3/A. None of the witnesses, may it be PW2 or PW3, whosoever, had claimed himself to be familiar with the signature of accused Ravinder Singh Mehta, nor, they had proved the execution of document and PW3 Sh. O.N.Rattanpal, had categorically stated that he had merely signed the same as a witness, when it was already bearing the alleged signature of accused Ravinder Singh Mehta and signature of accused Balwan Singh, as a witness thereon.
20. In view of my aforesaid discussion, I have no hesitation in holding that prosecution had miserably failed to bring home the guilt of either of the accused persons warranting their conviction and sentence in the present case.
21. Accordingly, both the appeals are allowed and both the accused persons are acquitted honorably. Their bail bonds and surety bonds are canceled and discharged. Copy of the signed judgment be placed on both the appeals. Copy of the CA No: 289/2017 and 290/2017 Page 57 of 58 judgment along with the trial Court record be sent to the Court concerned for information. Both the appeal files be consigned to record room after compliance of necessary legal formalities.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT
DATED: 24.09.2022
LOKESH Digitally signed
by LOKESH
KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA
Date: 2022.09.26
SHARMA 16:33:37 +0530
(LOKESH KUMAR SHARMA)
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE (SFTC)
DWARKA COURTS : NEW DELHI
CA No: 289/2017 and 290/2017 Page 58 of 58