Delhi District Court
Fir No: 28/ vs The State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 14 July, 2015
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. HEMANI MALHOTRA/ASJ/05/C/DELHI
Criminal Revision No. 42/2015
FIR NO: 28/11
PS: Crime Branch
Bhanwar Lal @ Ankit
S/o Sh. Bhagirath
R/o Village Jalotra, P.S. Jhaub,
District Jalore,
Rajasthan
.......Petitioner
Vs.
The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
Through Public Prosecutor, Central Delhi
.....Respondent
Date of institution : 26.07.2014
Date of receipt of the matter : 11.03.2015
Date of conclusion of final arguments/
reservation of judgment : 13.07.2015
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 14.07.2015
JUDGMENT
1. Present Revision petition has been preferred by the accused Bhanwar Lal @ Ankit against the impugned order dated 28-4-2014 passed by the Learned M.M. vide which charge U/ss 419/420/468/471 IPC have been framed against the accused in case titled as State Vs Bhanwar Lal in case FIR No. 28/2011, PS Crime Branch, New Delhi.
2. Briefly stated, facts relevant for the disposal of the present revision petition as per the charge sheet are that the accused Bhanwar Lal was arrested in case FIR No. 248/2010, registered U/ss 392/397/411/120B IPC, PS DBG Road. During investigation it was found that accused Crl. Revision No.94/2014; Bhanwar Lal @ Ankit Vs. State Page No.1 of 6 2 Bhanwar Lal was providing information to the robbers through mobile no. 9312623254. Sim of this mobile was found to have been issued by one Virat Communication in the year 2008 on the basis of CAF submitted by accused Bhanwar Lal as per which the SIM was applied for in the name of one Manoj Kumar S/o Daya Chand R/o C-96/26/13 DESU Sub Station, Minto Road, Delhi, by submitting a photocopy of his Driving License . First information statement of Manoj Kumar was recorded on 5-1-2011 wherein he stated that about 2 years ago he was working at Laxmi Dia Jewelers Pvt. Ltd., and had submitted photocopy of his driving licence as ID proof. Accused Bhanwar Lal was working as a cook in Laxmi Dia Jewelers Pvt. Ltd. He (Accused Bhanwar Lal) had applied for a SIM by submitting the photocopy of the driving licence of Manoj without his knowledge and had been using the said SIM. He also stated that he was aware that accused Bhanwar Lal has been using mobile No. 9312623254. On the basis of the first information statement of the complainant Manoj Kumar, further investigation was conducted and Pre-paid application form of mobile No. 9312623254 was obtained. It was then discovered that accused Bhanwar Lal had been using the said mobile number 9312623254 issued in the name of Manoj Kumar for providing information to the robbers. Thereafter, ruqqa was prepared and case FIR no. 28/2011, U/ss 419/420/468/471/120B IPC was registered against the accused.
3. During further investigation, co-accused Sandeep Nagpal, proprietor of Virat Communication to whom CAF form was submitted and his employees were interrogated and their statements were recorded. The CDR of mobile phone number 9312623254 was analyzed and it was noticed that accused Bhanwar Lal had also made calls to his relatives and friends from the said number. Pursuant to which, their statements Crl. Revision No.94/2014; Bhanwar Lal @ Ankit Vs. State Page No.2 of 6 3 were recorded. During further investigation, specimen hand writing of accused Bhanwar Lal was obtained after seeking permission and his specimen hand writing along with CAF (questioned document) was sent to FSL Rohini for examination. The specimen hand writings of co- accused Sandeep Nagpal and his employees were also obtained and sent for forensic examination. After completion of investigation, charge- sheet U/ss 419/420/468/471/120B IPC was filed against accused Bhanwar Lal and Sandeep Nagpal and on receipt of the report from the FSL, supplementary charge sheet was filed against the accused persons.
4. On receipt of charge-sheet, arguments on charge were heard by the Learned M.M., and consequently, impugned order on charge dated 28-4-2014 was passed, which is under challenge before this court.
5. I have heard the Learned Counsel for the accused/revisionist and the Learned Addl. PP for the State. I have also gone through the record of the Learned Trial court meticulously.
6. It has been very vehemently argued by the Learned counsel for the accused/ revisionist that there is not an iota of material on record to prima facie frame charge against the accused U/s 419/420/468/471 IPC. The accused has been falsely implicated and the same is demonstrated by the FSL report dated 04-4-2012. He has further submitted that the Learned M.M. has committed grave injustice by ignoring the report of the FSL dated 04-4-2012 and observing that the FSL Rohini has returned a positive finding that CAF has been filled in the writing of accused Bhanwar Lal.
7. Per contra, the argument of the Learned counsel for the accused has Crl. Revision No.94/2014; Bhanwar Lal @ Ankit Vs. State Page No.3 of 6 4 been repelled by Learned APP for the State by submitting that the statements of the complainant and the relatives/ friends of accused Bhanwar Lal recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C, prima facie show that it was the accused Bhanwar Lal, who had been using the mobile phone No. 9312623254. Hence, there is no infirmity in the impugned order dated 28-4-2014.
8. Adverting to the facts of the present case, admittedly, accused Bhanwar Lal was arrested in case FIR no. 248/2010, registered U/ss 392/397/411/120B IPC, PS DBG Road for allegedly supplying information to the robbers by using mobile phone number 9312623254. The first information statement of complainant Manoj Kumar S/o Daya Chand and the statement of Paresh Sawaria Under 161 Cr.P.C prima facie also reveals that accused Bhanwar Lal was using mobile phone no. 9312623254. However, the present case FIR No. 28/2011 was registered against the accused Bhanwar Lal not for using mobile phone No. 931262354 but for obtaining mobile phone No. 9312623254 by submitting the photocopy of driving licence of complainant Manoj Kumar in the name of Manoj Kumar, without the knowledge of Manoj Kumar. It is the case of the prosecution that the CAF was filled by accused Bhanwar Lal in the name of Manoj kumar to procure mobile phone No. 9312623254 from Reliance Communications Ltd, through Virat Communications. Accordingly to prove the same, the specimen handwriting of accused Bhanwar Lal was obtained and sent for forensic examination to FSL Rohini. Surprisingly, the FSL report dated 4-4-2012 qua the examination of alleged hand writing of accused Bhanwar Lal on CAF speaks a different story altogether. When the documents were received for forensic examination, the questioned hand writing on Reliance Mobile Crl. Revision No.94/2014; Bhanwar Lal @ Ankit Vs. State Page No.4 of 6 5 Pre-Paid Application form (CAF) was marked as Q1 and the specimen hand writing of the accused Bhanwar Lal was marked as S1 to S4. After examining the hand writings on Q1 and S1 to S4, it was opined by Dr. Virender Singh, Sr. Scientific Officer (documents) FSL Delhi that "All the documents were carefully and throughly examined with scientific instruments such as Stereo Microscope, Docucenter and different Magnifying Glasses etc, under different lighting conditions and considerable time and labour have been spent in their examinations. But it could not be possible to link the authorship of red enclosed writings stamped and marked Q1 with red enclosed writings similarly stamped and marked S1 to S4.............". Since, the questioned hand writing could not be linked with the hand writing of the accused Bhanwar Lal, I am of the opinion that no prima facie case U/s 419/420/468/471 IPC against the accused Bhanwar Lal is made out. Merely showing that accused Bhanwar Lal was prima facie using mobile phone No. 9312623254, in the absence of any proof that it was he who had obtained mobile phone number 9312623254 by submitting CAF, the accused Bhanwar Lal cannot be tried for the offences U/ss 419/420/468/471 IPC.
9. Before parting with the order, I am constrained to observe that the Ld. M.M. miserably failed in his duty by ignoring the opinion given by Dr. Virender Singh, Sr. Scientific Officer, FSL Rohini, in his FSL report dated 04-4-2012 with respect to the present case FIR and observing that the FSL Rohini had given a positive finding regarding the hand writing on the questioned document (CAF) and the specimen in writing of accused Bhanwar Lal. The trial Court are under a bounden duty to peruse the material on record carefully before framing charge against the accused, otherwise same will lead to miscarriage of justice.
Crl. Revision No.94/2014; Bhanwar Lal @ Ankit Vs. State Page No.5 of 6 6
10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the revision is allowed and the impugned order dated 28-4-2014 framing charges against the accused Bhanwar Lal under Sections 419/420/468/471 IPC is set aside. Revision is allowed. Revision file be consigned to record room. Trial Court Record be sent back with copy of this order.
Announced and signed in Open Court on 14.7.2015.
(Hemani Malhotra) ASJ-05 (Central)/THC/Delhi Crl. Revision No.94/2014; Bhanwar Lal @ Ankit Vs. State Page No.6 of 6