Delhi District Court
Mr. Satvir Singh Dalal vs The State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 3 July, 2021
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY SHARMA-II : ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-03,
(CENTRAL): TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Criminal Revision No. 58622/2016
CNR No.: DLCT01-016765-2016
Mr. Satvir Singh Dalal
S/o Sh. Jai Lal
R/o VPO Goela Khurd,
Najafgarh, Delhi
..... Petitioner
VERSUS
The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
..... Respondent
Date of Institution : 26.11.2016
Date of Arguments : 23.06.2021
Date of Judgment : 03.07.2021
JUDGMENT
INTRODUCTION:
1. The criminal revision petition under Section 397 of 'The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973' (Hereinafter referred to as 'the Cr.P.C.') is directed against order dated 03.09.2016 (In short 'the impugned order') in case No. 295814/2016 titled as 'State vs. Untraced' arising from FIR No. 139/2010 under Section 420/467/468/471/380 of 'The Indian Penal Code, 1860' (In short 'IPC') whereby Ld. MM-07 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi accepted the untraced report dated 08.08.2015 filed by the Investigating Officer (IO).
Cr. Rev. No. 58622/2016 Satvir Singh Dalal vs. State Page No. 1 of 17 FACTS:
2. Facts leading to the filing of the present revision petition are that the petitioner lodged a complaint on 01.05.2010 with police post, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi vide DD No. 33 PP TH on the averments that he is a practicing advocate. He has a chamber No. 69-70, Western Wing, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. He is having an account with State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Branch, Delhi vide SB No. 10945775152. He was having an amount of Rs. 76,01,507.46/- in the said account. He used to keep the bank passbook and cheque book in the drawer of the table in his chamber.
3. According to the petitioner, in the month of March, 2010; a person came to his chamber and introduced himself as 'Ajay Sharma'. The said person informed that he was a final year student of law and he retired from Navy. The said person informed that he was attending evening classes and he would be completing law in the current session. The said person wanted to learn drafting and court proceedings. The said person did not ask for any remuneration. The petitioner allowed him to work with him to learn legal processes. The said person was regularly attending his office till lunch and therefore, the petitioner started reposing confidence in him. On 06.04.2010, the petitioner had a discussion in his office that last day of deposit of electricity bill of his chamber with NDPL was 08.04.2010. The said person offered to deposit the electricity bill of his chamber with NDPL.
Cr. Rev. No. 58622/2016 Satvir Singh Dalal vs. State Page No. 2 of 17
4. According to the petitioner, he had given a cheque bearing No. 242878 dated 06.04.2010 for Rs. 80/-
drawn on 'State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi' in favour of NDPL alongwith the electricity bill. The said person handed him over the said electricity bill alongwith deposit slip. On 15.04.2010, the said person had taken SIM of mobile phone of the clerk of the petitioner, namely, Praveen, on the pretext that his daughter had a brain tumour and he was taking her for treatment to Hyderabad and the said SIM will be convenient for him for the purpose of out station calls. The said person did not turn thereafter.
5. The case of the petitioner was that he did not find bank passbook in the drawer when he wanted to check the status of his account. He was under the impression that the said passbook might have been misplaced. On thorough search, he could not find the said passbook in the chamber and it generated suspicion. The petitioner applied for issuance of a duplicate bank passbook. On receipt of the duplicate bank passbook, the petitioner found that besides the bank passbook, cheque No. 242082 forming the part of the leaf of the cheque book issued to him by the State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi was also stolen. The petitioner found that the said cheque was encashed on his forged signature to the extent of Rs. 6,88,000/-. The said amount was credited to the new account of Ajay Sharma opened with Axis Bank Ltd., Sadar Bazar Road, Delhi vide A/c No. 910010012058698.
Cr. Rev. No. 58622/2016 Satvir Singh Dalal vs. State Page No. 3 of 17
6. The case of the petitioner was that Ajay Sharma stolen his cheque and forged his signature and withdrawn an amount of Rs. 6,88,000/- from his bank account. The petitioner suspected involvement of the bank officials in commission of the said offence as they had opened the said bank account without verifying the identity and address of Ajay Sharma in breach of banking rules. Therefore, the petitioner lodged the said complaint against Ajay Sharma and bank officials under Section 380/420/468 read with Section 120 IPC.
REGISTRATION OF FIR:
7. On receipt of the said complaint on 01.05.2010, PS Subzi Mandi lodged the said FIR on 24.05.2010 on the direction of DCP (North).
INVESTIGATION:
8. During investigation, IO served a notice under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. upon State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi and collected the documents, as under:
"1. Account statement of account No. 10945775152 in the name of Satvir Singh Dalal for the period from 01- 03-10 to 26-05-10.
2. Image / photocopy of Cheque No. 242078 of Rs. 80 dated 06-04-10.
3. Original Chque No. 242079 dated 06-03-10 of Rs. 15000/-.
4. Original Cheque No. 242080 dated 13-02-10 of Rs. 6000/-.
5. Original Cheque No. 242081 dated 03-04-10 of Rs. 20,000/-.
6. Original Cheque No. 242083 dated 17-04-10 of Rs. 15000/-."
Cr. Rev. No. 58622/2016 Satvir Singh Dalal vs. State Page No. 4 of 17
9. During investigation, IO served a notice under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. upon Axis Bank, 6615-22, Bhadur Garh Road Chowk, Bara Hindu Rao, Sadar Bazar, Delhi and collected the documents / information, as under:
"1. Original Account opening form with photograph pasted on it.
2. Copy of Driving license.
3. Copy of Electricity bill.
4. Chq number 242082 of SBI, Tis Hazari amounting Rs. 6.88 Lakhs.
5. Statement of A/c since opening of account.
6. There was no Introducer of the Account.
7. Mr. Rohit Kapoor, Mr. Manu Aneja and Mr. Ashish Karmakar has signed off the account opening form and documents. Mr. Rohit had seen the original Driving license and Electricity bill, Mr. Manu has met the customer and verified his signatures and Mr. Ashish has verified the Account opening form. The addresses of the staff are mentioned below:
Rohit Kapoor - Emp. Code 34068, Resident of H. No. 151, B Block, Gali No. 11, Shri Ram Colony, Rajiv Nagar, Khajuri Khas, Delhi-110094;
Manu Aneja - Emp. Code 34040, Resident of A-29, Defence Colony, Bhopura, Sahibabad, Ghaziabad- 201005;
Ashish Karmakar - Emp. Code 34281, Resident of DU - 64, Pitampura, Delhi-110088.
8. The money was withdrawn by Chq and ATM. The details re provided in the A/c statement.
9. CCTV clipping is enclosed.
10. The money was not transferred in any other A/c, it is evident from A/c statement."
Cr. Rev. No. 58622/2016 Satvir Singh Dalal vs. State Page No. 5 of 17
10. The driving license and electricity bill furnished by Ajay Sharma were found forged. NDPL, Civil Lines Zone, Delhi and Transport Authority, Mall Road, Delhi communicated that the said documents were not issued by them. On enquiry from the officials of Axis Bank, it revealed that the officials of Axis Bank verified the address mentioned on the account opening form as Chamber No. 69-70, Western Wing, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi twice. First time, Ajay Sharma alongwith 3 persons was found present in the said chamber and the said 3 persons identified him as 'Ajay Sharma' and the second time, the petitioner was present in the said chamber and identified Ajay Sharma. Bank cheque book and ATM card were delivered through courier at the said address which were received by Mr. Praveen Kumar. IO could not trace Ajay Sharma despite efforts.
11. During investigation, IO examined the petitioner, his clerks, namely, Praveen and Jawahar Singh, and officials of Axis bank, namely, Rohit Kapoor, Manu Aneja and Ashish Karmakar, and Mr. Ashok Kumar Gupta, Manager, State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi.
THE CHARGE-SHEET:
12. After investigation, IO reached to the conclusion, as under:
"On the basis of investigation conducted so far, it revealed that an unknown person came to chamber No. 69-70, Western Wing, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi of the petitioner and he stated his name as 'Ajay Sharma' and that he retired from Navy and doing LLB final. He stated that he wanted to join the office of the petitioner to learn the court proceedings.
Cr. Rev. No. 58622/2016 Satvir Singh Dalal vs. State Page No. 6 of 17 The petitioner believed him and kept him as 'Assistant' in his office. The accused had the intention to commit cheating since beginning. He influenced the petitioner to the extent that the petitioner did not obtain his residential address nor felt the need of looking any document. The accused had stated to the petitioner that Mr. Virender Singh, Panchayat Secretary had sent him to his office whereas the accused met the said Virender Singh outside the office of the petitioner and asked him about mobile number of the petitioner. The said Virender Singh had stated that the petitioner would be in the High Court and thereafter, the said Virender Singh made the accused to talk to the petitioner through his mobile phone. The accused created a communication gap between the said Virender Singh and the petitioner, and succeeded in creating the impression that the said Virender Singh had sent the accused to the petitioner and for that reason, the petitioner did not make requisite enquiry from the accused and permitted him to sit in his office. The requisite enquiry is made from all the persons related to the present case. However, no substantial information could be obtained regarding the said accused, namely, Ajay Sharma. The accused presented himself as 'Ajay Sharma' and mentioned address of chamber No. 69- 70, Western Wing, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi for opening of bank account with Axis bank and deposited fake driving license and electricity bill and mentioned mobile phone 9971275800 of the clerk, namely, Praveen in the column of phone number. The bank officials made two visits to Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi for verification of address of the accused. The accused was present in the said chamber both times. The clerks present in the chamber identified the accused in front of the bank officials as 'Ajay Sharma' and second time, the petitioner identified the accused in his chamber. The bank officials were satisfied that the petitioner was well known to the accused and therefore, they cleared the account opening form. The accused obtained SIM of mobile number, as mentioned in the said account opening form, from the clerk, namely, Praveen on the pretext that his daughter had brain tumour and he is taking her for treatment to Hyderabad.
Cr. Rev. No. 58622/2016 Satvir Singh Dalal vs. State Page No. 7 of 17 The accused mentioned the address of the nominee 'Rani' as the same address mentioned in the account opening form. The address mentioned as communication address as well as permanent address in the said account opening form is the address of the chamber of the petitioner. Besides this, the accused had not given any information in the said account opening form. The documents, namely, driving license and electricity bill submitting for opening the said account were found fake. The accused had not stated his original address to any person of the chamber. The accused was not keeping any mobile phone on the pretext that he had lost his mobile phone and he would purchase a new mobile phone. He had not given any information regarding him to anyone. He stated that he has a house in Rohini and Laxmi Nagar. However, he had not given their addresses. Besides the fact that the accused, namely, Ajay Sharma came to the chamber of the petitioner, he had not given any information regarding him to anyone. Mobile No. 9971275800 was used till 20.04.2010."
13. As stated in the charge-sheet, the photographs of the accused were affixed in all the Court complexes and shown to several clerks. There is no information regarding the parentage and residential address of the accused. It is also not clear whether the name 'Ajay Sharma' is the real name of the accused. The identity of the accused could not be established. On requisite investigation, the accused, namely, 'Ajay Sharma' could not be traced. Accordingly, untraced report is being filed. As and when any clue regarding the accused is obtained, the investigation of the case would be reopened. FIRST UNTRACED REPORT:
14. On 17.09.2012, first untraced report filed.
Cr. Rev. No. 58622/2016 Satvir Singh Dalal vs. State Page No. 8 of 17
15. On considering the protest petition, untraced report, and arguments of the petitioner, the trial Court, vide order dated 04.09.2013, directed further investigation, as under:
"After perusing the final report and annexed documents and considering the protest petition, I am satisfied that IO has not conducted the investigation on the following points:
1. There is no investigation towards the procedure of opening of saving account in the name of Ajay Sharma at Axis Bank, Sadar Bazar. The person who filed the field verification report and the compliance of the requirements of KYC norms was not interrogated about their satisfaction.
2. I find force in the argument of the complainant that the Axis Bank has opened the account by not following the standard procedure as address given by Ajay Sharma is of an Advocate Chamber which cannot be a permanent address for an applicant.
3. The role of Rohit Kapoor who has verified the annexed documents filed with the account opening form was not investigated properly as he has stamped the photocopy of driving license as well as electricity bill as 'original seen and verified'. But as per investigation, the said documents are forged."
16. On 18.09.2015, Investigating Officer filed supplementary charge-sheet. During further investigation, IO examined Rohit Kapoor, Ashish Karmakar and Jawahar Singh. Rohit Kapoor, Business Development Executive (BDE) visited the chamber and verified the documents. He stated that there was no need of introducer or permanent address to open the account, as per 'Know Your Customer' (KYC) norms. Ashish Karmakar, Manager stated that the said account was opened after verification of the documents, as per KYC norms.
Cr. Rev. No. 58622/2016 Satvir Singh Dalal vs. State Page No. 9 of 17 SECOND UNTRACED REPORT:
17. On completion of investigation, IO filed untraced report in the form of supplementary charge-sheet that he has investigated the case from all possible angles and he has not been able to obtain any clue regarding the suspect.
18. On 15.01.2016, the petitioner filed the 2 nd protest petition.
19. On 03.09.2016, the trial Court, vide the impugned order, accepted the untraced report, as under:
"During further investigation, the said Rohit Kapur has been interrogated who stated that he was working in Axis Bank as BDE and his profile routine work was to visit the customer's address and verify the documents. He further stated that the accused Ajay produced the original DL. The introducer was not taken from the accused as same is not required as per KYC norms.
The complainant has again raised objections on the further investigation raising suspicion on the bank officials. It is further mentioned that though the bank officials had visited the chamber No. 69-70 but it is not the residential of the accused, then why the same was accepted.
After registration of case, the police has investigated the case from every possible angle. The bank officials were thoroughly interrogated. The mobile phone which was borrowed by the accused from Praveen, the clerk of the complainant, was also put on surveillance and photographs of the accused were duly published. There may be some negligence on the part of the bank officials in accepting his chamber address as a residential address but it has come on record that it was accepted after proper verification. There is nothing on record which shows the involvement of bank staff. The accused could not be found even after sincere efforts. The investigation is satisfactory. Hence, the report is hereby accepted."
Cr. Rev. No. 58622/2016 Satvir Singh Dalal vs. State Page No. 10 of 17 GROUNDS OF REVISION:
20. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order, the petitioner preferred the criminal revision petition on the grounds, as under:
(a) The trial Court did not apply judicial mind and accepted the untraced report mechanically;
(b) There was need of custodial interrogation of the suspects to unearth the true facts;
(c) In the charge-sheet, there is no mention of collection of CCTV footage;
(d) The trial Court did not exercise its power directing the police to obtain specimen handwritings and signatures from the voucher and Account Opening Form (AOF) for forensic examination;
(e) The trial Court did not appreciate that an Advocate's chamber cannot be a residential address of any person;
(f) The trial Court did not appreciate that acceptance of the statements of the bank officials and other suspect is not sufficient to unfold the crime;
(g) The bank officials and the petitioner's clerk had an involvement in the case but IO did not interrogate the petitioner's clerk and Rohit Kapoor, the bank official;
(h) Rohit Kapoor, the bank official opened the bank account on fake documents without verifying the residential address of the swindler;
(i) The interrogation of Rohit Kapoor and Ashish Karmakar was a mere eye wash who opened the account in breach of banking rules vide Bank Rule No. 2.4 and 2.5 of the circular dated 24.10.2010 prescribing 'identification Procedure and Requirement' of the Documents, for opening of a new account;
(j) KYC norms came into operation on 02.07.2012 whereas the account was opened on 07.04.2010 and therefore, the bank officials misguided IO that there was no need for obtaining any introducer for opening a new bank account;
Cr. Rev. No. 58622/2016 Satvir Singh Dalal vs. State Page No. 11 of 17
(k) A lawyer's chamber cannot be a residence of any person and the bank official did not raise any question about existence of the said address on the driving license of the swindler;
(l) The account was opened on 07.04.2010 whereas 'Signature Mismatch Declaration' and 'Form No. 60' were signed on 22.03.2010;
(m) The police has not interrogated Himanshu, who had visited the chamber for verification and Manu Aneja who signed 'Signature Mismatch Declaration' and 'Form No. 60'; and
(n) The petitioner's clerk induced the petitioner to handover the electricity bill and a cheque of Rs. 80/-
to the swindler just to obtain the signature of the petitioner.' APPEARANCE:
21. I have heard arguments of Mr. Ashok Drall, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. J.S. Malik, Ld. Addl. PP for the State / respondent and perused the written arguments. THE CONTENTIONS:
22. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the bank officials opened the bank account on fake documents without verifying the electricity bill and driving license of the offender. He submitted that a lawyer's chamber cannot be a permanent address for a driving license of any person. He submitted that the bank officials did not conduct verification of the said documents from the chamber of the petitioner. He submitted that original electricity bill and driving license were not shown to the person verifying the address of the swindler.
Cr. Rev. No. 58622/2016 Satvir Singh Dalal vs. State Page No. 12 of 17
23. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that 'Signature Mismatch Declaration' and 'Form No. 60' of the swindler were signed on 22.03.2010 whereas the account was opened on 07.04.2010. He submitted that Himanshu, a bank official, who had visited the chamber of the petitioner is not interrogated. He submitted that the petitioner's clerk, namely, Jawahar Singh was actively involved but he was not properly interrogated. He submitted that the bank officials are directly involved in the offence. He submitted that there is need of custodial interrogation of the bank officials and Jawahar Singh to unfold the crime. He submitted that column pertaining to 'Permanent Address' in the Account Opening Form is blank and it is merely ticked 'same as communication address'. He submitted that residential verification is a mandatory requirement under the banking procedure for opening a bank account. He submitted that there is need of specimen handwritings and signatures of the bank officials to find out as to who had filled 'Account Opening Form'. He submitted that there is no investigation regarding the procedure of opening of a saving bank account. He submitted that the standard procedure for opening of a bank account, as per KYC norms, was not followed. He submitted that IO blindly accepted the version of the bank officials and Jawahar Singh. There is need to ascertain role of Rohit Kapoor who verified copy of fake documents. He submitted that the police be directed to investigate the case, as prayed.
Cr. Rev. No. 58622/2016 Satvir Singh Dalal vs. State Page No. 13 of 17
24. Ld. Addl. PP for the State submitted that the Investigating Officer investigated the case from all possible angles. He submitted that the trial Court applied its judicial mind and accepted the untraced report. He submitted that there is no illegality, infirmity or error in the impugned order. THE CASE LAW:
25. In Kishan Lal vs. Dharmendra Bafna & Anr., (2009) 7 SCC 685, Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
"16..... Apart from the aforementioned grounds, the learned Magistrate or the superior Courts can direct further investigation, if the investigation is found to be tainted and / or otherwise unfair or is otherwise necessary in the ends of justice. The question, however, is as to whether in a case of this nature a direction for further investigation would be necessary."
ANALYSIS:
26. This Court finds that the Investigating Officer did not conduct the investigation properly for the reasons, as under:
(a) IO did not examine Manu Ajena, a bank official as to why he verified 'Signature Mismatch Declaration' on 22.03.2010 before submission of 'Account Opening Form' on 07.04.2010;
(b) IO did not examine Ashish Karmakar, Bank Manager as to why he had accepted and signed 'Form No. 60' on 22.03.2010 whereas the account was opened on 07.04.2010;
(c) IO did not examine Himanshu, a bank official who went to the chamber and seen original driving license;
(d) IO did not interrogate Ashish Karmakar, Branch Head in view of statement of Manu Aneja that the offender was familiar with the Branch Manager, Operation Head, Delhi;
Cr. Rev. No. 58622/2016 Satvir Singh Dalal vs. State Page No. 14 of 17
(e) IO did not interrogate Rohit Kapoor on the aspect that why he had not shown the driving license and electricity bill to the petitioner or anyone who was present in the chamber during his visits;
(f) IO has not interrogated the bank officials regarding the 'Debit Card Details' of the offender in the 'Account Opening Form';
(g) IO did not ascertain the angle of collusion of the bank officials with the offender and verify as to whether such procedure was followed in opening of other accounts in the bank at the relevant time;
(h) IO did not obtain location, as per 'Call Detail Record' (CDR), so as to trace the offender;
(i) IO has not made any effort for apprehension of the offender. He was merely contended with affixation of his photographs at the premises of the Court complexes in Delhi;
(j) IO did not obtain the special features like dialect and appearance of the offender to ascertain the region of the offender so that he could make further search in the said areas; and
(k) IO did not take the co-operation of other police stations in Delhi and across the country to trace the offender.
27. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the trial Court accepted the 'untraced report' mechanically without applying its judicial mind and failed to consider the aforesaid infirmities and deficiencies in the investigation. The impugned order suffers from an apparent error of law which would occasion injustice, if it is allowed to stand. Therefore, the impugned order is set-aside. The criminal revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed.
Cr. Rev. No. 58622/2016 Satvir Singh Dalal vs. State Page No. 15 of 17
28. The Investigating Officer is directed to investigate the case, on the aspects as highlighted by this Court and the trial Court, vide order dated 04.09.2013, and file the final report at the earliest.
29. A copy of the order be sent to the concerned Court. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned police station alongwith the police record. A copy of the order be sent to Ld. Counsel for the petitioner through electronic mode.
30. The revision file be consigned to record room.
Digitally signedSANJAY by SANJAY SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2021.07.03 14:35:08 +0530 Announced in the open Court SANJAY SHARMA-II on this 03rd July, 2021 Addl. Sessions Judge-03 (Central) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi Cr. Rev. No. 58622/2016 Satvir Singh Dalal vs. State Page No. 16 of 17 Satvir Singh Dalal vs. State CNR No.: DLCT010167652016 Cr. Revision No. 58622/2016 03.07.2021
Present : Mr. Ashok Drall, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. J.S. Malik, Ld. Addl. PP for the State / respondent.
Vide separate judgment, the criminal revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The revision file be consigned to record room.
Sanjay SharmaII ASJ03, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi 03.07.2021 Cr. Rev. No. 58622/2016 Satvir Singh Dalal vs. State Page No. 17 of 17