Delhi District Court
State vs Harish Kumar Sharma on 31 July, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAGHAV SHARMA, METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE 06,
SOUTH EAST DISTRICT, NEW DELHI
STATE VS. Harish Kumar Sharma &
Ors
FIR NO: 1178/2014
P. S Kalkaji
U/s 420/467/468/471 r/w u/s 34
IPC
Case No. 96506/2016
JUDGMENT
Date of its institution : 20.07.2016
Name of the complainant : Devashish Kumar Mohanti,
S/o Sh. S K Mohanti,
R/o H. NO. JB15, Radha
Krishna Apartment, Gupta
Colony, Khirki Extn.,
Malviya Nagar, New Delhi.
Date of Commission of offence : 06.11.2014
Name of the accused : (1) Harish Kumar Sharma,
S/o Lt.Sh. Radhey Shayam,
R/o 62/3/8B/1, New Janta
Colony, Mustafa Quarter,
Agra Cantt., Agra, U.P.
(2) Jaiveer Singh,
S/o Sh. Shivpal Singh,
R/o Village Dhakpura, PS
Allau, Distt. Mainpurim U.P.
(proceedings abated vide
order dated 21.12.2021)
Digitally signed
Plea of accused : Not Guilty RAGHAV by RAGHAV
SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
Case reserved for orders : 04.07.2024 2024.07.31
16:52:40 +0530
FIR no. 1178/2014 State Vs. Harish Kumar Sharma 1/16
Final Order : Convicted.
Date of orders : 31.07.2024
BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS FOR THE DECISION:
1. This is the prosecution of the accused namely Harish Kumar Sharma and Jaiveer Singh upon a charge sheet filed by the police station Kalkaji under section 420/467/468/471 r/w u/s 34 IPC.
2. Briefly stated, as per the case of prosecution, on or before 06.11.2014, btoh accused persons cheated the complainant, got the cheque bearing no. 393259 of Rs. 15,23,982/ issued in favour of M/s Silver Collection Pvt. Ltd., by M/s Genus Genus Apparels Ltd., transferred to the account of M/s Jawan Security Guard Agency owned by accused Jaiveer Singh Chauhan by changing the name of the payee from "M/s Silver Collection Pvt. Ltd." to "M/s Genus Genus Apparels Ltd.", thereby, both accused persons committed an offence punishable u/s 420/467/468/471 r/w 34 IPC.
3. After completing the formalities, investigation was carried out by PS Kalkaji and a charge sheet was filed against the accused persons. The charges were framed against the accused u/s 420/467/468/471 r/w 34 IPC on 06.06.2018, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. During the trial accused Jaiveer Singh expired and proceedings against him abated vide order dated 21.12.2021.
5. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution has examined following seven witnesses;
• Sh. D K Mohanty complainant in the present case deposed as PW1; • Sh. Madhu Sudan Srivastava, Manager, Bank of India, deposed as PW2; • Sh. Indra Mani Pathak deposed as PW3;
• Ct. Manoj deposed as PW4; Digitally signed by
RAGHAV RAGHAV SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2024.07.31
16:52:51 +0530
FIR no. 1178/2014 State Vs. Harish Kumar Sharma 2/16
• ASI Kanwar Singh deposed as PW5;
• Retired Inspector Karamvir Malik deposed as PW6; and • Retired SI Yashpal Singh deposed as PW7.
6. PW1 deposed that he was the then Head Finance and Account at Genus Apparels Ltd. office at Faridabad, Haryana. On 07.11.2014, he submitted a cheque No.393259 dated 06.11.2014 of Rs.15,23,982/ alongwith the request letter duly signed by the Managing Director of the company Mr. Amit Aggarwal for making RTGS / NEFT in favour of Silver Collection Pvt. Ltd. On the next day i.e. 08.11.2014, while he was checking the bank details, he found that the said RTGS was not transferred to the Silver Collection Pvt. Ltd. but it was transferred to Jawan Security Guard agency which was withdrawn from the Oriental Bank of Commerce, Branch MG Road, Agra, UP. Day after, he informed the same to his MD and thereafter, he filed a case at PS Kalkaji. He had made a complaint on official pad and the said complaint is Ex.PW1/A. During the investigation, IO also inquired from him and also recorded his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. separately and IO also obtained some documents from him
7. PW2 deposed that on 11.02.2015 he was posted as Sr. Manager, Bank of India, Nehru Place, New Delhi. During investigation IO ASI Yash Pal reached office and Sr. Officer, AGM had given a reply to the IO in reference to letter dated 05.02.2015 for providing documents in relating to FIR No. 1178/14. Thereafter he had handed over documents on behalf of his Sr. officer, AGM i.e. 1. original cheque bearing No. 393259 dated 06.11.2014, 2. RTGS slip dated 07.11.2014 of Rs. 1523982 of M/s Genus Apparels Ltd, 3. copy of bank statement of M/s Genus Apparels Ltd, 4. copy of RTGS report of Bank of India, Nehru Place, 5. CD of CCTV footage installed in the said bank dated 07.11.2014. The IO had seized the said documents vide seizure memo is Ex. PW2/A. The photocopies of the above mentioned documents are marked as mark A to D and the original CD of CCTV footage is exhibited as Ex. PW2/B. Digitally signed RAGHAV by RAGHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.07.31 16:53:00 +0530 FIR no. 1178/2014 State Vs. Harish Kumar Sharma 3/16
8. PW3 deposed that on 07.05.2015 he was posted as Branch Manager at Oriental Bank of Commerce, M G Road, Agra. On that day, some police official PS Kalkaji had visited the bank and inquired regarding the present case. He was informed by the police that a fake RTGS of Rs. 15,23,982/ was transferred from Bank of India to their branch and accused person had got withdrawn of Rs. 15,20,000/. Thereafter, he had handed over the bank opening account form, copy of bank statement of account No. 01941131001704 and the withdrawal cheque No. 832365 dated 07.11.2014. Thereafter, IO had made seizure memo of the same vide seizure memo is exhibited as Ex. PW3/A. The said documents i.e. bank opening account form (total 16 pages) which is Ex. PW3/B, copy of bank statement of account No. 01941131001704 which is Ex. Ex. PW3/C and also the original cheque No. 832365 dated 07.11.2014 Ex. PW3/D. The Ex. PW3/B i.e. the bank account form it was verified by accountant namely Sh. Sanjay Jasuja and V.K. Sharma, Branch Manager at that time of opening of account it was in favour of M/s Jawan Security Guards, it was represented by proprietor / accused Harish Kumar Sharma. The photograph affixed at the form Ex. PW3/B who is the account holder.
9. PW4 deposed that on 31.12.2015 he was asked by ASI Yashpal to deposit some documents at FSL Rohini. Thereafter, the MHC R had handed over him road certificate no. 92/21/15. Thereafter, he went and deposited the same at FSL Rohini and returned to PS and handed over the road certificate to MHC R. IO also recorded his statement.
10. PW5 deposed that on 18.12.2014, at about 7.10 p.m. SI Karamveer Malik had went to PS and handed over him Rukka for registration of case. On the basis of Rukka, he recored FIR No. 1178/14 Ex. PW5/A. After registration, the case was marked to ASI Yashpal Singh. Thereafter he made endorsement on rukka Ex PW5/B and certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act is Ex.PW5/C.
11. PW6 deposed that on 18.12.2014 he was posted as Chowki Incharge at PS Digitally signed by RAGHAV RAGHAV SHARMA FIR no. 1178/2014 State Vs. Harish Kumar Sharma SHARMA Date:
2024.07.31 4/1616:53:16 +0530 Kalkaji. On 08.11.2014, SHO kalkaji marked him a complaint, he endorsed the same which is already Ex. PW5/B and registered the present case. The present case marked to ASI Yashpal for further investigation.
12. PW7 deposed that on 18.12.2014 the present case was marked to him for further investigation. During the course of investigation, complainant gave a cheque of Rs. 15,23,982/ in favour of Silver Collection Pvt. Ltd., copy of cheque is marked as Mark A. Some unknown person placed a forged slip with the name of Jawan Security Guard Agency and above said amount transferred in the account of Jawan Security Guard Agency. The forged slip is already marked as B. He served notice u/s 91 Cr.PC to Bank of India, Nehru place and obtained the details of complainant account which are already marked C and D. He also obtained the CCTV footage and CD of DVR from Bank of India which is already Ex. PW2/B. CCTV Footage is marked as mark A. During the course of investigation, he came to know Jawan Security Guard Agency having account at OBC Bank Agra. Thereafter, he went to Agra and served notice u/s 91 Cr.PC to OBC Bank Manager and obtained the document pertaining to Jawan Security Agency which are already Ex. PW3/D. He seized the same document and prepared seizure memo which is already Ex. PW3/A. During the course of investigation, he came to know Harish Kumar Sharma is the proprietor of Jawan Security Guard Agency and withdrawal the cheated amount through cheque by accused Harish Kumar Sharma. Thereafter, he went to Agra in search of accused house. However, accused could not be found. Thereafter, he got conducted process u/s 82 Cr.PC through court and accused was declared PO. Thereafter, he filed the charge sheet against the accused as PO. On 17.09.2017 the accused was arrested by the officials of PS Vasant Kunj as PO. Thereafter, on 19.09.2017 he filed production warrant and formally arrested to the accused vide arrest memo is Ex. PW7/A and took his 03 days PC remand with the permission of the court. During PC remand accused disclosed that he had committed the offence with coaccused Jaivir. He also recorded the disclosure statement of Harish which is Ex. PW7/B. On 20.09.2017 he along with other Digitally signed RAGHAV by RAGHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.07.31 FIR no. 1178/2014 State Vs. Harish Kumar Sharma 16:53:27 +0530 5/16 police official went to village Dhokpura, Distt. Mainpuri, to arrest coaccused Jaivir Singh wherein accused was found present at his house. He arrested accused Jaivir Singh and conducted his personal search vide memos are Ex. PW7/C and Ex. PW7/D. He also recorded disclosure statement of accused Jaivir which is Ex. PW7/E. On 21.09.2017 he produced the coaccused Jaivir before the court and took two days PC remand. In PC remand accused disclosed that he along with coaccused Lekh Raj and Babban had committed the offence. Thereafter, they went to Mathura for search of coaccused Lekh Raj and Babban, however, coaccused Lekh Raj was found but Babban could not be traced. In the meantime, he produced the accused Harish and were produced before court. He also obtained the specimen signature of accused Harish in court which is Ex. PW7/F (Colly). During the course of investigation, he sent the documents to FSL. He also obtained the CAF of all accused and suspect. He filed the charge sheet before the court. Thereafter, he obtained the result of FSL and filed supplementary charge sheet.
13. After examination of all prosecution witnesses, PE was closed on 19.03.2024. Thereafter, statement of the accused was recorded U/s 313 Cr.PC on 09.04.2024 wherein all the incriminating circumstances were put to him which he denied and pleaded his false implication. He also chose not to lead defence evidence.
14. I have heard the Ld. APP and carefully perused the record in extenso. Ld. APP has canvassed that the prosecution has been successful in proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt as testimony of all the witnesses was not impeached by the accused.
15. The allegation against the accused person is that they both jointly in furtherance of their common intention committed cheating, forgery of valuable security by altering the name of payee on cheque bearing no. 393259 for purpose of committing cheating and thereby caused wrongful loss to the complainant and wrongful gain to themselves. Following are the fact in issue in the present case.
Digitally signed RAGHAV by RAGHAV
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2024.07.31
FIR no. 1178/2014 State Vs. Harish Kumar Sharma 16:53:38 +0530 6/16
• That both the accused persons had common intention of committing cheating, forgery of valuable security/cheque and usage of same for the purpose of cheating with the complainant.
• That both the accused persons committed forgery of valuable security / cheque and used the same for committing cheating in furtherance of their common intention.
LAW INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT CASE
16. Section 420 IPC provides for the offence of cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. Simple cheating is punishable u/s 417 IPC. But where there is delivery or destruction of any property or alteration or destruction of any valuable security resulting from the act of person deceiving, the same falls under the ambit of section 420. It reads as under:
"S.420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.--Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine"
17. Section 415 IPC provides for the offence of simple cheating. It is punishable under section 417 IPC. Section 415 reads as under:
"Cheating.--Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, Digitally signed mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat"." RAGHAV by RAGHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.07.31 16:53:49 +0530 FIR no. 1178/2014 State Vs. Harish Kumar Sharma 7/16
18. The essential ingredients to attract section 420 IPC are:
• Cheating;
• Dishonest inducement to deliver property or to make, alter or destroy any valuable security or anything which is sealed or is capable of being converted into a valuable security; and • Mens rea of the accused at the time of making the inducement.
19. Section 467 of the IPC provides for aggravated forms of forgery and attracts stringent punishment upto life imprisonment. It deals with forgery of valuable security, will etc. It reads as under:
"Whoever forges a document which purports to be valuable security or a will, or an authority to adopt a son, or which purports to give authority to any person to make or transfer any valuable security, or to receive the principal, interest, or dividends thereon, or to receive or deliver any money, moveable property, or valuable security, or any document purporting to be an acquittance or receipt acknowledging the payment of money, or an acquittance or receipt for the delivery of any moveable property or valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."
20. A bare reading of this provision suggests that a person may be convicted under this offence if the following essential ingredients get fulfilled:
i. Existence of a forged document ii. Forged document must purport to be:
• A valuable security; or • A will; or • An authority to adopt a son; or • Give authority to any person to make or transfer any valuable security; or to receive returns on a valuable security or to receive or deliver moveable property or valuable security • An acquittance receipt for payment of money or for delivery of moveable Digitally signed RAGHAV by RAGHAV SHARMA FIR no. 1178/2014 State Vs. Harish Kumar Sharma SHARMA Date: 2024.07.31 8/16 16:54:06 +0530 property or valuable security.
21. Therefore, the primary ingredient which needs to be proved by the prosecution in order to attract section 467 IPC is the existence of a forged document. Forgery is defined in section 463 IPC as the making of a false document or false electronic record with any of intentions mentioned therein. Section 464 defines the making of false document or false electronic record.
Section 463 reads as under:
"Whoever makes any false documents or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record, with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery."
Section 464 reads as under:
"Making a false document A person is said to make a false document or false electronic record First Who dishonestly or fraudulently Makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document; Makes or transmits any electronic record or part of any electronic record; Affixes any electronic signature or any electronic record; Makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or authenticity of the electronic signature, With the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of document, electronic record or electronic signature was made, signed, sealed, executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows or affixed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed, executed, or affixed; or Secondly Who, without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise alters a document or an electronic record in any material part thereof, after it has been made, executed pr affixed with electronic signature either by himself or by any other person, whether such person be living or dead at the time of such alteration; or Thirdly - Who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document or an electronic record or affix his electronic signature on any electronic record knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot, or that by reason of deception Digitally signed RAGHAV by RAGHAV SHARMA FIR no. 1178/2014 State Vs. Harish Kumar Sharma SHARMA Date: 2024.07.31 9/16 16:54:17 +0530 practiced upon him, he does not know the contents of the document or electronic record or the nature of the alteration."
22. In brief the case of the prosecution is that the complainant had made a complaint stating that it had deposited a request letter along with impugned cheque and RTGS form for making payment from its account to its supplier. However, when it checked its bank statement, it found that payment has been transferred to Jawan Security Guard Agency. Complainant stated in his complaint that the name of the original payee printed on the back of the cheque had been erased and fresh details were written by hand. During investigation, original impugned cheque, RTGS form, bank account statement of complainant and CCTV footage of the bank was received. During investigation, bank record reflected that amount was transferred to Jawan Security Guard Agency of which accused Harish Kumar Sharma was proprietor. During investigation from the bank record of Jawan Security Guard Agency, it was found that accused Harish Kumar Sharma had withdrawn the impugned amount forthwith on the same day it was transferred to him through a self cheque. During investigation, accused Harish Kumar Sharma was declared absconder.
23. During investigation, complainant informed the IO about his suspicion of involvement of his employee Jaiveer Singh Chauhan. In the investigation, IO obtained specimen signatures of Jaiveer Singh Chauhan and sent the same to the FSL for its comparison with impugned signature on forged RTGS form and forged name of payee on the back of cheque. In the FSL result the examiner did not provide any opinion stating that it was not possible to express any opinion as the disputed writing on the forged RTGS form and on back of the cheque were written consciously and slowly. However, he stated in his report that marks of original matter / computer printed matter (name of original payee) on the reverse side of the cheque were visible though it was not possible to decipher as to what was written. He has stated in his observation that scratch mark and disturbance in paper fibre indicate that there are marks of physical erraser below the name Digitally signed by RAGHAV RAGHAV SHARMA State Vs. Harish Kumar Sharma SHARMA Date:
FIR no. 1178/2014 2024.07.31 10/1616:54:26 +0530 Jawan Security Guard Agency. In the CCTV footage accused Jaiveer Singh Chauhan can be seen inside the bank premises on the date and time on which alleged amount was transferred to accused Harish Kumar Sharma.
24. During further investigation, accused Harish Kumar Sharma was apprehended and interrogated. His signatures on account opening form of bank account in which he received the money were sent to FSL for comparison with his alleged signature on the cheque. In the FSL report, examiner has expressed his opinion that the impugned handwriting belong to accused Harish Kumar Sharma.
25. The allegation of the complainant is that it had printed the name of original payee on the back side of the impugned cheque and the same was erased and name of Jawan Security Guard Agency was forged upon it. In the FSL report, handwriting expert has also stated that traces of scratch marks and disturbance in the paper fiber were there. Marks of physical eraser were also present and original computer printed matter (stated by complainant to be of name of original payee) were visible. This observation and finding of hand writing expert was not disputed by both the accused persons during trial. This observation and finding proves that name of original payee printed on the back side of the cheque was erased and name of Jawan Security Guard Agency was written subsequently on it. From the opinion of handwriting expert, it stands proved that forgery was indeed committed on the cheque and RTGS form. Now it needs to be seen whether accused persons had common intention to commit such forgery, to use such forged document and whether they intended that such forged document be used for the purpose of cheating.
26. It has not been disputed during trial that Jawan Security Guard Agency and its proprietor Harish Kumar Sharma had no business relations with the complainant. Therefore, there was no reason for transfer of any amount to it by the complainant. The chronology of acts i.e. forgery of name of Jawan Security Guard Agency on the cheque of complainant, preparation of forged RTGS, Digitally signed by RAGHAV RAGHAV SHARMA State Vs. Harish Kumar Sharma SHARMA Date:
FIR no. 1178/2014 2024.07.31 11/1616:54:36 +0530 presentation of forged RTGS in its name, transfer of amount to Jawan Security Guard Agency, withdrawal of cheque amount forthwith by its proprietor accused Harish Kumar Sharma through self cheque, which all took place on 07.11.2014 shows that accused Harish Kumar Sharma and the person who forged the name of Jawan Security Guard Agency on the impugned cheque and who prepared forged RTGS had prior meeting of mind amongst them. The chronology in which these acts took place shows that accused Harish Kumar Sharma and that person who committed the forgery on cheque and RTGS form were very much in connect with each other and they both intended and wanted to achieve the common purpose of cheating the bank of the complainant and causing wrongful gain to themselves. The evidence of the complainant and other witnesses shows that accused Harish Kumar Sharma and that other person had common intention amongst them.
27. There is no reason or logic to say that Harish Kumar Sharma and that other person did not have a common intention as had there been no common intention, accused Harish Kumar Sharma would not have known about transfer of amount to his account. Without common intention, he would have no occasion to present self cheque of almost same cheated amount on the very same date. The urgency with which the amount has been withdrawn forthwith and the chronology of acts prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused Harish Kumar Sharma was in common intention with the person who had forged the name of Jawan Security Guard Agency and RTGS form.
28. For applicability of section 34 IPC, it is essential "a criminal act done by several persons in furtherance of common intention of all ". The act of accused Harish Kumar Sharma wherein he presented the self cheque and withdrew the cheated amount forthwith proves that he had acted in furtherance of their common intention of cheating the bank of complainant. That other person has been proved by FSL report to have committed forgery upon RTGS form and impugned cheque this forgery became instrumental in commission of cheating with the Digitally signed by RAGHAV RAGHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date:
FIR no. 1178/2014 State Vs. Harish Kumar Sharma 2024.07.31 16:54:46 +0530 12/16 complainant's bank. The commission of forgery by the other person was also an act done by him in furtherance of common intention of his and accused Harish Kumar Sharma. The actions of these persons have proved that not only they had common intention amongst them rather they also acted by doing above acts in furtherance of their common intention.
29. Now from the evidence lead by the prosecution, it needs to be seen whether the said other person referred in above para was accused Jaiveer Singh Chauhan or not. Prosecution examined Branch Manager/PW2 of the concerned bank where the complainant had its account. In his evidence PW2 stated that he had handed over account opening form, original cheque bearing no. 393259 dated 06.11.2014, RTGS slip dated 07.11.2014, copy of bank account statement of complainant, copy of RTGS report of the bank and CCTV footage of the bank dated 07.11.2014 to the IO. He exhibited all these documents in his evidence. This witness was not cross examined by both accused persons.
30. Though, the CCTV footage has been brought on record, however, the state did not make any endevour to get the complainant confronted with the said video to prove whether accused Jaiveer Singh could be seen in the bank premises on the date on which the forged RTGS form along with cheque was presented in the bank. No effort was made by prosecution during examination of all the witnesses to show in evidence that accused Jaiveer Singh can be seen in bank premises in the CCTV footage on the relevant date and time. Other than mere disclosure of Jaiveer and confession and disclosure of coaccused Harish Kumar Sharma, which are not admissible, there is no evidence on record to suggest that the said other person was Jaiveer Singh who erased the name of original payee and had written the name of Jawan Security Agency and prepared forged RTGS form.
31. Be that as it may, the proceeding against him has already abated as he expired during trial. Nevertheless, this fact would not be of any benefit to accused Harish Kumar Sharma as it can not be stated that there was no other person in Digitally signed by RAGHAV RAGHAV SHARMA Date:
FIR no. 1178/2014 State Vs. Harish Kumar Sharma SHARMA 2024.07.31 16:54:55 13/16 +0530 existence who forged the name of Jawan Security Agency and RTGS form. It is just that the prosecution failsed to establish the identity of that person. The report of handwriting expert which has gone unchallenged has proved that forgery was indeed committed on the cheque and RTGS Form. The evidence tendered and the chronology of acts as discussed in preceding paragraphs clearly shows that someone had committed forgery on cheque and RTGS form and that someone was in common intention with accused Harish Kumar Sharma who acted in furtherance of their common intention.
32. PW1 in his examination in chief repeated his statements which he made in his original complaint and u/s 161 Cr.PC. This witness remained unchallenged by the accused persons as no crossexamination was conducted.
33. PW3 is the Bank Manager at OBC Bank where the accused Harish Kumar Sharma had his bank account and from where he had withdrawn the cheated amount through his self cheque. He stated in his examination in chief that he has handed over bank account opening form of accused Harish Kumar Sharma, copy of his bank account statement, original withdrawal cheque no. 832365 dated 07.11.2014 to the IO. This witness exhibited all these documents. He identified the accused Harish Kumar Sharma in court as the same person whose photographs are there on account opening form.
34. In his crossexamination, this witness stated that bank account and signature was verified by the bank. He stated that he had no knowledge as to who had withdrawal the money. Though, the witness does not know whether the money was withdrawn by Harish Kumar Sharma or by someone else. However, it does not affect the case of prosecution as firstly, the FSL report has established that accused Harish Kumar Sharma had signed the cheque and secondly, even if someoone else had withdrawn the amount, since the signature was of accused Harish Kumar Sharma, he would be responsible for the withdrawal. At any point during the crossexamination, it has not been disputed by the accused that the Digitally signed by RAGHAV RAGHAV SHARMA FIR no. 1178/2014 State Vs. Harish Kumar Sharma SHARMA Date:
2024.07.31 14/1616:55:21 +0530 signature did not belong to him. The onus of proof was upon accused Harish Kumar Sharma u/s 103 Indian Evidence Act that the signature did not belong to him. He did not lead any evidence to prove the same therefore, it stands proved that it was he who had signed the self cheque and who had withdrawal the amount.
35. PW4, PW5 and PW6 are police witnesses and their statements relate not to the material facts of the case but with the steps taken during the investigation and preparation of documents. There is nothing in their chief examination and cross examination which effects the merit of the prosecution's case.
36. PW7 is the IO of the case who deposed in his examination in chief about the steps taken by him during the investigation. In his crossexamination, nothing material could be brought to the fore by counsel for accused which could effect the merit of the prosecution's case. Other than mere suggestion of accused that he was falsely implicated which was denied by IO, there is nothing in cross examination which could go in favor of accused.
37. The case of prosecution was that accused Jaiveer had forged the name of Jawan Security Guard Agency by committing forgery on impugned cheque and RTGS form. Due to this forgery, amount from the account of complainant was transferred in the account of accused Harish Kumar Sharma who withdrew the same through self cheque on the date of transfer itself. It is the case of prosecution that accused Jaiveer and Harish Kumar Sharma were in common intention with each other. FSL results have proved that accused Harish Kumar Sharma had signed the cheque and had withdrawn the amount on the very date it was transferred to him. It has been proved that there was forgery committed on the cheque of the complainant and its RTGS form. It has further been proved that accused Harish Kumar Sharma and the complainant had no business transaction raising no occasion for transfer to him. The chronology of events have been clearly established by the prosecution. From the evidence lead by the Digitally signed by RAGHAV RAGHAV SHARMA State Vs. Harish Kumar SharmaSHARMA Date:
FIR no. 1178/2014 2024.07.31 15/1616:55:33 +0530 prosecution, it can be said that it has proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused Harish Kumar Sharma and the other person who committed forgery were in common intention with each other. The prosecution has proved that forgery has been committed. It has also proved beyond reasonable doubt that forged document was used. It has further succeeded in proving that the forged document was used for the purpose of commission of cheating with complainant's bank as it is the complainant's bank which got deceived by forgery in believing that complainant had directed payment to Jawan Security Guard Agency whereas it was never so. Given all these acts were committed in furtherance of common intention and as it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused Harish Kumar Sharma had such common intention, he would be liable as if he had committed these offences himself.
38. Therefore, in view of the above discussions and findings, the accused Harish Kumar Sharma stands convicted for the offence u/s 420/467/468/471/34 IPC.
RAGHAV Digitally signed by
RAGHAV SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2024.07.31
16:55:40 +0530
Announced in the open court (RAGHAV SHARMA)
on 31.07.2024 JMFC06, South East, New Delhi
It is certified that this judgment contains 16 pages and each page bears my signatures. RAGHAV Digitally signed by RAGHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.07.31 16:55:46 +0530 (RAGHAV SHARMA) JMFC06, South East, New Delhi/31.07.2024 FIR no. 1178/2014 State Vs. Harish Kumar Sharma 16/16