Delhi District Court
State vs . Satbir Singh Choudhary on 9 April, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. AKASH JAIN, METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE06, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
State vs. Satbir Singh Choudhary
FIR No : 473/90
U/s : 420/468/471 IPC
PS : Parliament Street
JUDGMENT
a) Sl. No. of the case : 106/02
b) Unique Case ID No. : 02403R0001491994
c) The date of commission of the
offence : During the year 19861988
d) Name of the complainant : P.L. Madan, Chief Manager, Punjab
National Bank
e) Name, parentage & address
of accused : Satbir Singh Choudhary S/o late Sh. M.S.
Chaudhary R/o B/21, Ashok Nagar,
Ghaziabad, U.P.
f) Offences complained of : 420/468/471 IPC
g) The plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
h) Final Judgment : Acquitted
i) Date of institution of case : 02.02.1994
j) Date of final arguments : 09.04.2014
k) Date of Judgment : 09.04.2014
BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR THE DECISION:
1. In the present case chargesheet was filed by the State under Sections 420/468/471 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter mentioned as 'IPC') against the accused Satbir Singh Choudhary on 02.02.1994. The case of prosecution is that during the year 1987 accused cheated Northern Railway CC NO.106/02 FIR No.473/90 Page no. 1 of 19 and PNB by submitting forged bank guarantee no.58/87 dated 10.09.87 for Rs.25,000/ on behalf of M/s Manu Construction with Northern Railway purported to be issued by PNB, Parliament Street, New Delhi and during above said period accused dishonestly and fraudulently used above forged bank guarantee as genuine knowing or having reasons to believe the same to be forged documents. Further, the case of prosecution is that during the year 1986 accused cheated Sr. Accounts Officer Metropolitan Transport Project (Railways) Patel Nagar, Northern Railway, New Delhi and PNB Parliament Street by submitting forged bank guarantees with Sr. Accounts Officer in favour of President of India acting through Dy.C.E./C/Spl./M.T./Rly. Tilak Bridge, Delhi for and on behalf of M/s Triveni Trading Corpn. 139, New Gandhi Nagar, Ghaziabad, U.P. bearing no.48/86 dated 02.07.86 for Rs.20,000/ and Bank guarantee 52/86 dated 21.07.86 for Rs.50,000/ due to the reasons detailed in complaint Mark A and during above said period accused dishonestly and fraudulently used above forged bank guarantees as genuine knowing or having reasons to believe the same to be forged documents. Further, it is the case of prosecution that during the year 1988 accused cheated Northern Railway and PNB, Parliament Street by submitting the forged bank guarantee no.22/88 for Rs.10,000/ on behalf of M/s Manu Construction with Northern Railway purported to be issued by PNB, Parliament Street, New Delhi and during above said period accused dishonestly and fraudulently used above forged bank guarantee as genuine knowing or having reasons to believe the same to be forged documents. Further it is the case of prosecution that during the year 1988 accused cheated Northern Railway and PNB by submitting the forged bank CC NO.106/02 FIR No.473/90 Page no. 2 of 19 guarantee no.35/88 dated 24.03.88 for Rs.25,000/ on behalf of Veer Singh, Bank Guarantee no.64/88 dated 15.06.88 for Rs.25,000/ on behalf of Tirveni Trading Corpn. and bank guarantee no.66/88 dated 20.06.88 for Rs.10,000/ on behalf of Arvind Kumar submitted with Northern Railways purported to be issued by PNB, Parliament Street due to the reasons details in complaint Mark A and during above said period accused dishonestly and fraudulently used above forged bank guarantee as genuine knowing or having reasons to believe the same to be forged documents.
2. On the basis of aforesaid chargesheet, Ld. Predecessor Court took cognizance of the offences under section 420/468/471 of IPC against the accused. Accused had appeared before the court and documents were supplied to him in compliance of section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter mentioned as 'Cr.P.C.'). Arguments on charge were heard and vide order dated 21.06.1996, Ld. Predecessor Court ordered for framing of charge under section 420/471 of IPC against the accused Satbir Singh Choudhary to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for prosecution evidence.
3. In support of its case, prosecution examined nineteen witnesses. PW1 is S.K. Malhan, who was the Sr. Accounts Officer with Northern Railway. He deposed that he was holding the said designation in 1988 and proved the seizure memo as Ex. PW 1/ A by which the police officials had seized the following documents and which bears his signature. He further proved the CC NO.106/02 FIR No.473/90 Page no. 3 of 19 documents seized, which were three bank guarantee as Ex. P1 to P3, a letter dated 10.09.87 as Ex. P4, Guarantee bonds as Ex. P4 to P7 and a letter dated 15.04.86 as Ex P8. He stated that he had signed on Ex PW 1/A on the instructions of one Devender Rai and on behalf of G.S. Verma, who was his batch mate and serving as Sr. Accounts Officer at the time of commission of offence.
4. PW2 is SI Ran Singh, who deposed that he received the investigation of the present case on 10/09/1992 and proved Ex. PW2/A vide which he seized the photocopies of various documents as Ex. PW2/B.
5. PW3 is S.L. Mukhi, who was a principal scientific officer in CFSL, New Delhi, specifically a handwriting expert. He deposed that he examined documents which were sent to him by SHO PS Parliament Street vide letter dated 27/11/91 and he arrived at the following opinion:
I) Handwriting evidence points to the writer of specimen signature marked S3 now Ex. PW3/A being the person responsible for writing the questioned signature marked Q24 now Ex. PW3/B, Q25 now Ex.
PW3/C, Q26 now Ex. PW3/D, Q27 now Ex. PW3/E, Q28 also Ex. PW3/E1, Q29 and Q30 on Ex. PW3/F, Q31, 32 and 33 on the back of Ex. PW3/F and now Ex. PW3/F1. Q35 now Ex. PW3/G, Q36, 37 now Ex. PW3/G1, Q38 Ex. PW3/G2, Q39 now Ex. PW3/G4, Q40, 41 on Ex. PW3/G5. To arrive at this opinion PW3 detailed his reason in his report which is Ex. PW3/H. II) The authorship of the questioned signature marked Q42 Ex. PW3/J, Q43 on Ex. PW3/G1, Q44 to Q47 also on Ex. PW3/G1, Q48 on Ex. PW3/K, Q48 could not be connected to the writer of CC NO.106/02 FIR No.473/90 Page no. 4 of 19 specimen signature marked by him as S5 now Ex. PW3/L. The detailed reasons are mentioned in the report Ex. PW3/H vide opinion no.2.
6. PW4 is Ct. Santok Raj, who correctly identified the accused present and proved the personal search of the accused done by the I.O. as Ex. PW 4/A The disclosure statement recorded by the I.O. was also proved as Ex. PW 4/B. He also proved the specimen signatures of accused as Ex. Pw 4/ D1 and D2. He along with PW11 SI Pyare Lal additionally proved the specimen signatures given by the accused as Ex. PW 4/C1, PW 4/C2 , PW 4/C3 , PW 4/C4 and PW 3/A.
7. PW5 is S.K. Tripathi who was the Senior Accounts Officer, office of F&A and CAO, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi from 1991 to Feb'94. He deposed regarding the procedure of the railway to award the contract to the contractor. He deposed that earnest money was initially called for completion of the contract, which is accepted in the form of bank guarantee and once contract is accepted, the earnest money is converted into security deposit, which is furnished by the contractor. He further deposed that Triveni Trading Co. and Manu Constructions applied to the department for the contract and submitted bank guarantees to the department .Four bank guarantees were submitted in the year 1986, one bank guarantee 3 bank guarantees were submitted in the year 1988. He further stated that all the aforesaid bank guarantees were sent to the P.N. Bank for verification of issuance in favour of the aforesaid companies and in reply, the bank officials stated that they were not issued by P.N. Bank. He additionally CC NO.106/02 FIR No.473/90 Page no. 5 of 19 deposed that they checked their records and no loss to their department was caused but the forgery was committed by submitting forged documents. He further deposed that he handed the police all the original bank guarantees, confirmation letter and letters written to the bank officials which were seized vide memo Ex. PW1/A. He further proved Bank guarantee no.58/87 and confirmation letter which is already Ex P3 and P4. He further proved bank guarantee no.32/86 and confirmation letter Ex. P7 and P8 which is Ex. PW5/A which was handed over to the IO. He further proved confirmation letter 66/88, extract of the railway board and the letters received and written to the bank as Ex. PX collectively. He also proved the letter which he had written as Ex. PW5/B. He further proved confirmation letter 64/88, extract of the railway board and the letters written and received from the bank as Ex. PY collectively. He further proved the letter which he had written as Ex. PW5/C. He further proved confirmation letter 35/88, extract of the railway board and the letters received and written to the bank as Ex. PZ collectively. He also proved letters which were written by him to Mr. Manoj Singh, IO as Ex. PW5/D, E, F & G. In his crossexamination he stated that he was not aware of the procedure with regard to allotment of contract and its conditions. He further stated that this particular job belongs to another Senior Accounts Officer and as he was absent on that day. He was instructed by his superior officer to reply to the queries of the police in a particular way. He also stated that he is aware that in this transaction no loss has occurred to the department.
8. PW6 is Dalbar Singh, who was working as Superintendent (Works) CC NO.106/02 FIR No.473/90 Page no. 6 of 19 at office of the Chief Admin. Officer (Const.), Northern Railway, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi. He deposed that he did not remember the exact date and month of the incident but it was in the year 1991 when he was working as Superintendent (Works), Kashmiri Gate that he handed over letters dated 23.06.1998, 25.03.1998 and 16.06.1998 which were proved as Ex. PW3/K, Ex. PW3/G1 and G2, which were seized vide memo Ex. PW6/A. He also proved an application for registration in the approved list of contractors which was in the name of Manu Constructions alongwith one affidavit as Ex. PW3/G4 and PW3/G5 and which was seized vide memo Ex. PW6/B. Further, in his crossexamination PW6 stated that the procedure to be adopted by the railway before the award of contract and after the award of contract was responsibility of the dealing clerk and he was in no way concerned with the same job.
9. PW7 is T. K. Bajaj, who deposed that in the year 1991, he was working as Senior clerk in Northern Railway, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi. He further proved the application for registration in the approved list of constructors in the name of M/s Manu Constructors as Ex. PW3/G4 which was handed over to him by Sh. Dalbar Singh on 18.11.1991. He also proved the affidavit regarding sole proprietorship of the firm M/s Manu Constructions in the name of Satbir Singh Chaudhary as Ex. PW3/G5. Further, in his crossexamination he stated that he was working under the supervision of his Superintendent and supposed to obey the instructions with regard to the work of railways. He further stated that he was not aware of any procedure regarding compliance with the instructions of the Railway CC NO.106/02 FIR No.473/90 Page no. 7 of 19 Board and other senior officials.
10. PW8 is Raj Pal, who was the Head Clerk of Northern Railway, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi. He deposed that he was posted in 12.11.1991, with Chief Administration Officer, Northern Railway, Kashiniri Gate as senior head clerk. He further proved three covering letters alongwith bank guarantee bonds of Rs.25,000/, Rs.25,000/ and Rs.10,000/ which were handed by Dalbar Singh, Superintendent (Works) and which were seized by police vide memo Ex. PW6/A. The covering letter are already proved as Ex. PW3/K, G1 to G2 and guarantee bonds as Ex. P3, P4, P7, PX, PY and PZ. During crossexamination PW8 stated that he was working under the instructions of his Superintendent and supposed to work under his supervision. He further stated that the instructions of the railway board and other senior officer is not his concern and he is to follow the Superintendent in day to day working.
11. PW9 is N.D. Kashturia, who was the Sr. Accounts officer of Northern Railway, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi. He deposed that he does not recollect the date but it was in the month of March 1991 and he was working as a Senior Accounts Officer at Northern Railway, Kashmiri Gate alongwith Sh. S.K. Tripathi in the same department. He proved the documents which were handed over to the police officials by S.K. Tripathi as Ex. PW9/A.
12. PW10 is P.L. Madan, General Manager, Punjab National Bank. He was partly examined by the prosecution as after recording of his examination in chief, his crossexamination was not conducted. In these CC NO.106/02 FIR No.473/90 Page no. 8 of 19 circumstances, his statement recorded before the court cannot be considered for being incomplete.
13. PW11 is SI Pyare Lal who deposed that on 04.06.1991, he participated in the investigation of the present case alongwith SI Malook Singh. SI Malook Singh in his presence and Ct. Santok Raj obtained specimen handwriting and signatures of accused as Ex. PW4/C1, PW4/C2, PW3/A, PW4/C3 and PW4/C4.
14. PW12 is HC Avtar Singh. He proved Ex. PW3/L wherein the specimen handwriting and signature of Arvind Kumar had been obtained by the IO in his presence. He further deposed that on 27.11.1991 on instructions of SI Malluk Singh, the MHCM had given him one sealed parcel to deposit the same at CFSL office, which he had deposited without any tampering.
15. PW13 is Inspector K.K. Gaur, who deposed that he received a rukka on 31.12.1990 on the basis of which he prepared the FIR which is Ex.PW 13/A.
16. PW14 is Anil Saxena, who stated that he was the Manager at Punjab National Bank in the year 1990. He stated that their bank had issued one bank guarantee number 22/88 on behalf of BST in favour of IPCL but did not remember the exact amount of the bank guarantee. He further stated that on a query regarding the aforesaid bank guarantee he checked the record but it was different from the record. He proved Ex.PW14/A by CC NO.106/02 FIR No.473/90 Page no. 9 of 19 which he had given requisite information pertaining to above mentioned bank guarantee in writing to a policeman who had come to the bank. In his crossexamination he stated that there was no loss which was caused to the bank by the queries made by the police officials. He also stated that he does not remember if he had obtained the photocopy of the alleged bank guarantee Rs.10,000/ to be kept on record.
17. PW15 is Kishore Naithani, who stated that he was posted in the year 1991 in the branch office of PNB and proved Ex.PW15/A by which he had handed over some documents relating to the case to the IO concerned. In his crossexamination, he stated that he does not remember the details of the documents which he had handed over to the IO.
18. PW16 is K.S. Arora, who stated that on 22.7.1991 he was posted as Assistant Manager at PNB, Parliament Street and Shri Kishore Nithani handed over eight documents to IO/ SI Maluk Singh out of which three documents were account opening of current account number 6290, 8749 and 9043, one was saving fund account No.59012 and four documents were relating to statement of these accounts. He further stated that the statement of account no. 59012 of Shri Arvind Kumar was prepared by him as well as the rest of the eight documents which were proved as Ex. PW16/A. In his crossexamination he stated that the account opening form Ex.PW3/A/1 which pertains to a current account was not opened in his presence. He also stated that the three current accounts mentioned in seizure memo Ex.PW 15/A and saving account mentioned in the memo PW16/A were not opened CC NO.106/02 FIR No.473/90 Page no. 10 of 19 and executed in his presence.
19. PW17 is Inspector Maluk Singh who is IO of the present case. He stated that on 24.12.1990 he was posted in PS Parliament Street and received a complaint from Shri P.L. Madan, Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank, Sansad Marg which was marked to him and proved as Ex. PW10/B upon which he made an endorsement on 31.12.1990 which he proved as Ex. PW17/A and got a formal FIR register as Ex. PW13/A. On 18.01.1991, Shri S.K. Tripathi, Senior Accounts Officer (Expenditure) produced documents comprising of three papers of bank guarantee No.58/87 dated 10.09.1987 issued by Punjab National Bank, Parliament Street on behalf of Manu Constructions and one confirmation letter dated 10.09.1987 and four papers of bank guarantee no.32/86 dated 14.04.1986 issued by PNB on behalf of Triveni Constructions and one confirmation regarding bank guarantee no.32/86. The papers of bank gurantee no.58/87 were proved as Ex. P1 to P3, confirmation letter as Ex.P4, four papers of guarantee No.32/86 as P4 to P7 and confirmation letter as Ex. P8. On 25.03.1991, Shri S.K. Tripathi, Sr. Accounts Officer produced 23 documents which contained the photocopies of letters, seizure memo regarding the bank guarantees and the original bank guarantee papers which were seized vide Ex. PW9/A. The documents/ letter seized vide vide seiure memo Ex. PW9/A at serial no.1 is Ex. PW5/A, the letter seized at serial no.2 of the said memo is Ex. PX, the documents seized vide said memo at serial no.3 is Ex. PX/PW3/J, photocopy of railway board letter is Mark 17/A, photocopy of letter dated 27.06.88 seized vide said memo at serial no.5 is Mark 17/A1, CC NO.106/02 FIR No.473/90 Page no. 11 of 19 photocopy of letter dated 05.09.88 is Mark 17/A2, letter seized vide said memo at serial no.7 is Ex. PW5/B, letter dated 15.06.88 seized vide said memo at serial no.8 is Ex. PY, 3 papers of bank guarantee no.64/88 vide said memo at serial no.9 is Ex. PX/PW3/D, photocopy of letter dated 02.09.1977 is Mark 17/A3, another photocopy of letter dated 17.06.88 seized vide said memo at serial no.11 is Mark 17/A4, photocopy of letter dated 22.06.88 seized vide said memo at serial no.11 is Mark 17/A5, one original letter dated 14.03.1991 regarding bank guarantee no.35/88 is Ex. PW5/C seized vide said memo at serial no.12 in two pages, confirmation letter dated 24.03.88 by Manager PNB, seized vide said memo at serial no.13 is Ex. PZ, original bank guarantee no.35/88 dated 24.03.88 issued by PNB and seized vide said memo at serial no.14 is Ex. P2. Photocopy of railway board letter dated 02.09.77 seized vide said memo at serial no.15 is Mark 17/A6, photocopy of letter dated 22.06.88 written by railway to PNB regarding confirmation of bank guarantee no.35/88 is marked 17/A7 seized by said memo at serial no.16, photocopy of letter dated 25.06.88 written by Manager PNB to railway Ex. Engineer is marked 17/A8 seized vide above memo at serial no.17, letter dated 22/25.03.91 seized vide said memo at serial no.18 is a letter regarding bank guarantee no.52/86 and 48/86 to IO is Ex. PW5/D, Original letter dated 22/25.03.91 regrading bank guarantee no.32/86 by M/s Triveni Trading Corporation addressed to IO by railway is Ex. PW5/E seized vide above memo at serial no.19, Original letter dated 22/25.03.91 to IO by railway regarding BG no.58/87 by M/s Manu Construction Company is Ex. PW5/F, seized vide above memo at serial no.20, letter dated 14.03.91/25.03.91 addressed to IO by railway regarding CC NO.106/02 FIR No.473/90 Page no. 12 of 19 BG no.22/88 dated 05.02.88 by M/s Manu Construction Company is Ex. PW5/G seized vide above memo at serial no.21. Attested true copy dated 25.04.89 regarding released of BG no.22/88 for Rs.10,000/ is Marked A 17/9 seized vide above memo at serial no.22 and photocopy of letter dated 26.12.88 regarding release of BG no.22/88 for Rs.10,000/ submitted by M/s Manu Construction Company is marked 17/A10 seized vide above memo at serial no.23. He further proved personal search memo of accused as Ex. PW4/A and disclosure statement Ex. PW4/B. He also proved the specimen signatures as Ex. PW4/C1, C2, 3A, Ex. PW4/C3, Ex. PW 3/C4. He further proved the documents which he had seized relating to the four accounts as Ex. PW15/A. He also proved the original current account opening form of M/s. Triveni Trading Corporation as Ex. PW3/E alongwith six papers of account statement mark 17/A11 to A16, original current account opening form in respect of Manu Construction as Ex. PW3/F and two papers of said account mark 17/A17 and 18. He also proved the original individual current account opening form no.8749 of Veer Singh as Ex. PW3/G and account statement of the same as Ex.17/A19. He also proved one original saving bank account no.59012 of Arvind Kumar as Ex. PW3/G1 and Ex. PW16/A. He further deposed that he took the specimen signature of Shri Arvind Kumar on 24.7.1991 as proved as Ex. PW3/L. He also proved the specimen signatures of Veer Singh as Ex. PW3/D1 and D
2. Thereafter, he stated that he sent the specimen signatures to the FSL and received the result from the CFSL proved as Ex.PW3/H. In his cross examination, he stated that he did not join any independent witness at the time of obtaining specimen signatures and specimen writing of accused CC NO.106/02 FIR No.473/90 Page no. 13 of 19 Satbir Singh. He also stated that there was no judicial officer present at the time of taking the specimen signatures.
20. PW18 is Tirath Pal, who stated that on 12.5.1993 he was posted as Head Clerk, Office of Deputy Chief Engineer, Patel Nagar and was handed over photocopies of notice proved as Mark 18/A and Mark 18/B which contained the information regarding the bank guarantees bearing no.48/86 and 52/96. In his crossexamination he stated that he was a dealing clerk at the relevant time and not dealing with the bank gurantees in his official capacity.
21. PW19 is R.P. Singh, who deposed that he was posted as executive engineer construction, Deputy Chief Engineer Construction, Northern Railway for the last one and a half months and he identified the signatures of Shri Ashok Kumar who was the Deputy Chief Engineer, Northern Railway on Ex.PW19/A according to which original documents could not be traced as the documents were in the custody of S Bhattacharya, working in the office.
22. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed by this court and statement of the accused Satbir Singh Choudhary u/s 281 Cr.P.C. r/w section 313 Cr.P.C. had been recorded. Accused denied all the incriminating evidence against him and pleaded that he is innocent and falsely implicated in the present case. The accused did not lead any defence evidence, as such the matter was straightaway fixed for final arguments.
CC NO.106/02 FIR No.473/90 Page no. 14 of 19
23. Final arguments were heard on behalf of both the parties and record perused in entirety. It is well settled that the onus to prove its case in a criminal trial always rests on prosecution and the said onus is to be discharged by leading evidence beyond reasonable doubts. In case, there is any doubt in the prosecution story, its benefit has to go to the accused.
24. For better appreciation of facts and evidence in hand in context of offences in question, it is imperative to refer to both the sections 420 and 471 IPC, which read as under: "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......"
"471.......Using as genuine a forged (document or electronic record) Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any (document or electronic record) which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged (document or electronic record), shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such (document or electronic record)........."
25. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Devender Kumar Singla v. Baldev Krishan Singla, (2005) 9 SCC 15 held:
" 7....Section 420 deals with certain specified classes of cheating. It deals with the cases whereby the deceived person is dishonestly induced to deliver any property to any person or to CC NO.106/02 FIR No.473/90 Page no. 15 of 19 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. Section 415 defines "cheating". The said provision requires: (i) deception of any person, (ii) whereby fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person to deliver any property to any person or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or (iii) intentionally inducing that person 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, mind, reputation or property. Deception of any person is common to the second and third requirements of the provision. The said requirements are alternative to each other and this is made significantly clear by use of disjunctive conjunction "or". The definition of the offence of cheating embraces some cases in which no transfer of property is occasioned by the deception and some in which such a transfer occurs. Deception is the quintessence of the offence. The essential ingredients to attract Section 420 are: (i) cheating; (ii) dishonest inducement to deliver property or to make, alter or destroy any valuable security or anything which is sealed or signed or is capable of being converted into a valuable security; and (iii) the mens rea of the accused at the time of making the inducement. The making of a false representation is one of the ingredients for the offence of cheating under Section 420......."
26. In the present case, the prosecution has relied on the deposition of PW10 P.L. Madan, General Manager, Punjab National Bank who testified that in the year 1988 he had received two letters from Senior Accounts Officer, Metropolitan Transport Project, Railways, Patel Nagar, Northern Railways regarding extension/ encashment of the bank guarantee no. 48/86 for Rs.20,000/ and other guarantee no.52/86 for Rs.50,000/ issued in CC NO.106/02 FIR No.473/90 Page no. 16 of 19 favour of President of India acting through Dy. Railway, Tilak Bridge, Delhi on behalf of the party Triveni Trading Corporation, 139, New Gandhi Nagar, Ghaziabad, UP but the same were confirmed to be false and fabricated and no property was delivered to the accused. However, it is pertinent to note that the testimony of PW10/ complainant P.L. Madan was incomplete as the accused did not get an opportunity to crossexamine the said witness. As per record, evidence of prosecution was closed by the court on 18.01.2006 and the matter was fixed for final arguments on 29.03.2006. Thereafter, one application was moved on behalf of prosecution u/s 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling 4 witnesses i.e. S.D. Roy, Tirath Pal, M.R. Gandhi and Inspector Maluk Singh for conducting their examination which could not be done earlier. The said application was allowed by the court and all the said witnesses were summoned again for their crossexamination. Thereafter, again the evidence of prosecution was closed on 14.07.2006 and statement of accused was recorded on 15.11.2006. The defence evidence was closed on 06.03.2007 and the matter was again listed for final arguments. However, this time again one application was moved on behalf of Ld. APP for State for recalling PW10 P.L. Madan for conducting his cross examination. The said application was though dismissed by Ld. Predecessor Court on 24.09.2011 with the findings that the said application had been filed at belated stage only to fill up the lacunaes in the case of prosecution. In these circumstances, in terms of settled law, testimony of PW10 P.L. Madan cannot be referred to for the purpose of instant trial as the same did not stand the test of crossexamination. Even otherwise, the essential ingredients of offence under section 420 IPC are not made out in the facts of CC NO.106/02 FIR No.473/90 Page no. 17 of 19 the present case, as there is no "delivery of property" or "wrongful loss"
caused to any party as reflected from the testimony of PW5.
27. With respect to the offence u/s 471 IPC, in order to bring home guilt of the accused, prosecution was required to prove the following:
i) That documents in question i.e. bank guarantees were forged;
ii) That the accused with fraudulent or dishonest intention used the said documents as genuine;
iii) That the accused knew or had reason to believe that the said documents were forged.
28. Not a single witness has been examined by the prosecution to prove that the impugned documents as submitted on behalf of accused before Northern Railways were forged. The testimony of PW5 S.K. Tripathi, that they came to know about the forgery in documents of accused when the bank guarantees were sent to PNB for verification and the bank officials informed that the same were not issued by the said bank, is merely hearsay and is not admissible in the evidence. Only the testimony of PW10/ complainant was material to prove forgery regarding documents in question.
However, since the testimony of said witness was incomplete and accused did not get an opportunity to crossexamine him, his statement cannot be read for the purpose of evidence. Testimony of PW3, Scientific Officer, CFSL only points out that the documents i.e. Bank Guarantees and confirmation letter were signed by the accused at the place of name of contractor which do not show forgery on the part of accused as the accused, being a contractor was supposed to sign the said documents at the relevant CC NO.106/02 FIR No.473/90 Page no. 18 of 19 place. As the prosecution failed to prove impugned documents as "forged", the essential ingredients of offence under section 471 IPC are not made out.
29. Keeping in view the facts, circumstances of the case and aforesaid findings, it is held that the prosecution has failed to prove the culpability of accused Satbir Singh Choudhary qua offences u/s 420/471 IPC beyond reasonable doubts. The accused Satbir Singh Choudhary S/o late Sh. M.S. Chaudhary is accordingly acquitted of aforesaid offences charged against him due to lack of evidence.
Announced in the open Court (Akash Jain)
on 09.04.2014 Metropolitan Magistrate06,
Patiala House Court,
New Delhi
CC NO.106/02 FIR No.473/90 Page no. 19 of 19