Delhi District Court
State vs . Jai Pal Singh, Etc. on 12 February, 2014
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. SWATI KATIYAR : MM, NEW DELHI
State Vs. Jai Pal Singh, Etc.
FIR No. : 48/1996
P.S. : Tilak Marg
U/Sec. : 471/171 IPC
JUDGMENT :
a) Srl. No. of the case & Date of institution 939/2/03 & 07.06.1996
b) Date of commission of offence 29.01.1996
c) Name of the complainant State through Dushyant Singh
d) Name of the accused 1.Jaipal Singh S/o Sh. Har Chandi, R/o H. No.2003, Lodhi Road Complex, New Delhi.
2. Mohd. Mushtaq S/o Mohd. Bakrulla, R/o H. No.236, Ist Floor, Gali No.18, Raza Chowk, Zakir Nagar, Okhla, Delhi
e) Nature of offence complained of U/Sec.171/471/120B IPC
f) Plea of the accused person Accused pleaded not guilty
g) Date reserved for order 25.01.2014
h) Final Order Accused Jaipal acquitted, Accused Mushtaq convicted
i) Date of order 12.02.2014 BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE CASE:
1. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that on 29.01.1996 on before at State Vs. Jai Pal Singh Etc. FIR No.48/1996 P.S. Tilak Marg 2 about 4.30 p.m. at Ministry of External Affairs office at Patiala House, accused Jai Pal and Mohd. Mustaq entered into a conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with imprisonment. Further after entering into an conspiracy, they used on the car bearing no.DL2CE3480 a token i.e. Parking label which was issued for car No.MND1, a government vehicle with the intention that it may be believed or with the knowledge that it is likely to be believed that they belong to that class of public servant. Further they both after entering into a conspiracy fraudulently used as genuine car parking label of car no.MND1 which they knew or had reason to believe that at that time when used it to be a forged one.
2. After completion of investigation, challan was filed on 15.03.1996. Copies were supplied to accused persons and notice under Section 171/471/120B IPC was framed upon them on 22.06.2001 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. Prosecution cited 11 witnesses out of which ten witnesses were examined. PW1 is Satbir Singh Tyagi, Dealing Assistant, New Delhi Authority who deposed that initially the car bearing No.DL2CE3480 was registered in the name of Nasmuddin on 28.05.1993 and lastly the said vehicle was transferred in the name of Mohd. Mushtaq. Copy of registration certificate as per record was tendered as Ex.PW1/A. He further deposed that prior to this, the said vehicle was transferred in the name of Jamaluddin. Copy of RC to that effect is Ex.PW1/B. During his cross examination, he deposed that request for transfer of vehicle No.Dl2C3480 was received in the office on 08.02.1996 in favour of Mohd. Mushtaq. He deposed that the day on which date the transfer fee was deposited was the date of transfer.
4. PW2 is SI Parveen Kumar who deposed that on 29.01.1996 he was posted as Duty Officer and at about 5.42 p.m., Ct. Ram Niwas came with rukka State Vs. Jai Pal Singh Etc. FIR No.48/1996 P.S. Tilak Marg 3 sent by SI Lala Ram, on the basis of which he lodged FIR No.48/1996 which is Ex.PW2/A. He further deposed that after registration of FIR he handed over the copy of FIR and rukka to Ct. Ram Niwas who left for spot immediately.
5. Sh. Dushyant Singh is PW3 who deposed that on 29.01.1996 at about 16.30 hours he received information from the SSF Control Board that a maruti car having MHC Parking level was found under suspicious circumstances at Patiala House premises by Sh. S. Sen, Joint Director, CBI. He immediately rushed to the spot i.e. PHC and found vehicle bearing No.DL2CE3480 parked there. He further deposed that the vehicle was having a red coloured MHA parking label sl. no.576 pasted on the wind scrren. On closer examination it was seen that the registration number written on the label appeared to be tampered with. PW3 further deposed that the original number had been erased and a new number was written on the label. He further deposed that on checking up the records, it was found that label to.576 had been issued to Sh. Malhotra (P.C. Malhora) APS to MOS on 13.11.1995. He deposed that since the label on the wind screen of the car appeared to be tampered with, he filed a complaint at P.S. Tilak Marg for further necessary action. He further deposed that there was a driver of the vehicle at the spot. Witness identified Mohd. Mushtaq present in the Court to be the driver of the car. Witness further stated that he did not know his name either now or then at the time of incident. PW3 deposed that he had given complaint Ex.PW3/A bearing his signatures at point A. Ld. APP requested for asking leading question and he asked whether Mohd. Mushtaq had revealed that the label was given to him by one Jaipal, driver of MHA to which the witness replied in affirmative.
6. During crossexamination, PW3 deposed that the SSF Control room is State Vs. Jai Pal Singh Etc. FIR No.48/1996 P.S. Tilak Marg 4 located at north block. He further deposed that no entry of information received in the SSF control room was made. He deposed that he was concerned with SSF Control room. He did not remember who was the Incharge of Control Room at that time. At the time of incident he was present at North Block. He deposed that he received the information from Incharge Control Room. He further deposed that his driver and wireless operator were with him when he came to Patiala House Court. He further deposed that sticker of Ministry of Home Affairs was there on vehicle. He further deposed that he came directly to the MEA Building/Patiala House Court. He admitted that in his complaint Ex.PW1/A he had mentioned that he came to Patiala House. He further deposed that he reached Police Station Tilak Marg alongwith accused Mushtaq and two others. He wrote the complaint in the PS. He deposed that sticker was not removed from the car by him. He further deposed that nobody removed the sticker from the car in his presence. He further deposed tthat SHO met him in the PS. He further deposed that after giving the complaint to SHO, he left the P.S. Tilak Marg. He further deposed that he met Joint Director CBI Sh. Sen and the SSF staff personnel at the spot. He further deposed that Sh. Sen did not accompany to the P.S. He never met any police officials thereafter. He further deposed that he could not say whether accused Mustaq was owner of the concerned vehicle or whether he was only an occupier or whether accused Mustaq was taking trial of the concerned vehicle. He further deposed that when he left the spot Mr. Sen was present there. He further deposed that only he and his driver went to P.S. alongith the accused and concerned vehicle. He did not know whether the accused Mustaq was illiterate or educated. He did not see any person pasting the sticker on the wind screen. He did not remember when he gave the documents regarding the person to whom the sticker was issued to the IO. He further deposed that he did not recall whether he gave the documents on the same day or State Vs. Jai Pal Singh Etc. FIR No.48/1996 P.S. Tilak Marg 5 not. He further deposed that at the time of incident three or four vehicles were also parked there, but exact number he did not remember. He did not verify about the other vehicles. He volunteered that there was no need to do so. He deposed that his staff also did not verify about other vehicles since there was no need to do so. He did not know how many scooters and cycles were there. He volunteered that there was no need do so. He admitted that at place of incident, public persons were present there. He did not know whether the IO had taken the photograph of the car or not. He had parked his official vehicle near about the car. He further deposed that the car was not parked in the NDMC parking. He did not remember whether accused Mustaq told him anything. He could not say whether accused Mustaq wanted to purchase the vehicle from original owner Jamaluddin. He could not say since when the sticker was on the concerned vehicle.
7. During crossexamination, PW3 deposed that the number of the sticker is
576. He further deposed that the sticker was issued for the use on the vehicle no. MND1. He admitted that vehicle No.MND1 was a private vehicle of Minister for State of Home, Assistant Private Secretary Sh. P.C. Malhotra. He admitted that on 13.11.95 four passes vide no.574 to 577 were issued to Subhash, Jamadar in the Ministry Office. He further deposed that vehicle No.DL2CD9527 at Sl No.1 was the official vehicle. He also admitted it correct that only on the said vehicle Jaipal was deputed and he had no concern with official vehicle. He also admitted that pass no. 574 was issued to vehicle no.DL2CD9527. He had not checked out the duty record of accused Jaipal dated 29.01.1996. He also admitted that on 29.01.1996 accused Jaipal did not meet him in the premises of Patiala House Court/MEA. He denied the suggestion that they have falsely implicated accused Jaipal in this case and he has no concern with gate pass no.576. State Vs. Jai Pal Singh Etc. FIR No.48/1996 P.S. Tilak Marg 6
8. Ct. Roop Ram is PW4. PW4 deposed that on 29.01.1996 at about 4.30 p.m. he was working as Guard Commander at Patiala House near Gate no.2. At near gate no.2 of Patiala House he saw one car bearing No.DL2CE3480 parking there and one parking level of MHA issued for VIPs Sl. no.576 was affixed on the front mirror of the car. On observations by him he found that there was overwriting in the number written on the label. He further deposed that in the meantime another official came there and instructed him to see the label carefully. He deposed that the vehicle was being driven by accused Mustaq whom he identified in the Court. He further deposed that he called the police and his officer Sh. Dushyant Singh also came there. PW4 further deposed that accused was handed over to the local police. He deposed that his officer also checked the label and found the over writing done on the label. He identified the label.
9. Sh. P.C. Malhotra was examined as PW5. PW5 deposed that on 13.11.1995 he was working as Assistant Private Secretary to the then Minister of State for Home Affairs. He deposed that as per the instruction of the Minister he sent one note dated 13.11.95 to CSO, MHA to issue car red park labels of vehicle No.Dl2CD9527, No.DNHG3234, No.MND1 and No.Dl1C4350. The copy of the said note is Ex.PW5/A. He further deposed that these car park labels were received by some personal staff of the Minister. During crossexamination, PW4 deposed that police did not meet him in connection of this case nor his statement was recorded. He deposed that he never stated to the police that as per the instruction of the Minsiter he sent one note to CSO, MHA to issue car red park labels of vehicle bearing No.DL2CD9527, No.DNH3234, No.MND1 and No.DL1C4350. He further deposed that he had not given any documentary note. State Vs. Jai Pal Singh Etc. FIR No.48/1996 P.S. Tilak Marg 7 He did not maintain any register of issuance of parking label of the car. He further deposed that CSO, Ministry of Home Affairs might be maintaining the record of car parking label in their office. He further deposed that the car parking labels received by him were issued by the personal staff othe Minister on the same day. During crossexamination on behalf of accused Jaipal, PW5 deposed that he did not know which was the private vehicle of the Minister out of four number of the vehicle he had issued the note Ex.PW5/A. He admitted that Jaipal, driver was appointed for govt. vehicle but he had no concern with the private vehicle of the Minister.
10. Ct. Tejpal Singh was examined as PW6. PW6 deposed that on 29.01.1996 during the course of investigation of the present case, disclosure statement of accused Mohd. Mustaq and Jaipal were recorded by the IO/SI Lala Ram which are Ex.PW6/A and Ex.PW6/B. During crossexamination, PW6 deposed that on 29.01.1996 he was posted as Beat Constable and was on patrolling duty in his beat area on the same day. He further deposed that he did not know for what purpose he was called by the IO and no other police officials was present at that time. He denied the suggestion that no disclosure statement was given by the accused person at any point of time. He further denied the suggestion that he did not join the investigation in any manner. He deposed that IO got the signature on the disclosure statement of accused Mushtaq. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely being an introduced witness. He deposed that his statement was recorded on the same day. He also admitted that accused Mushtaq told the IO that he was an illiterate person and that he is not knowing anything in respect of the label and what kind of label was pasted on the car. He admitted that IO had recorded statement on his own. He denied the suggestion that he had not given any statement or that he was not called by the IO on 29.01.1996. PW6 admitted that State Vs. Jai Pal Singh Etc. FIR No.48/1996 P.S. Tilak Marg 8 he did not know on which date or what time disclosure statement of accused Jaipal was recorded. PW6 denied the suggestion that he had not joined the investigation or that he was deposing falsely.
11. Sh. Shantanu Sen, Officer Special Duty to Lt. Governor of Delhi was examined as PW7. PW7 deposed that on 29.01.1996 he was posted as Joint Director , CBI and on that day he came to Ministry of External Affairs, Patiala House and there he saw that one car bearing No.DL2CE3480 was lying parked inside the Ministry of External Affairs. PW7 further deposed that there was one VIP car label pasted on the wind screen of the said car. The said parking label is only issued for VIP vehicles by Ministry of External Affairs and it could not be used for private vehicles. He further deposed that there was label no.576 written on the said parking label and the car registration number was erased and no.DL2CE3480 was written. He had handed over the car and the driver to security staff, Ministry of Home. He could identify the said car, Label and driver/accused of the said car. He identified the car through photographs which are Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 and label is Ex.P4. He identified the accused/ driver present in the Court. During crossexamination by accused Mohd. Mustaq he deposed that he did not remember the exact time on which he reached at the Ministry of External Affairs due to lapse of time. He further deposed that he had come to the External Affairs office to meet Chief Passport Officer. Police had recorded his statement during investigation. He further deposed that he did not remember the exact date. He denied the suggestion that police never met him and also not recorded his statement and also he had never gone to the poice station. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
State Vs. Jai Pal Singh Etc. FIR No.48/1996 P.S. Tilak Marg 9
12. IO/Retd. SI Lal Ram is PW8. PW8 deposed that on 29.01.1996 he was posted as Sub Inspector at PS Tilak Marg and on that day on receipt of DD No. 27A, he alongwith Ct. Ram Niwas went to Office of External Affairs, Tilak Marg where one Dushyant Singh, Deputy CSO, Govt. of India handed over him a complaint on the basis of which he got registered case FIR No.48/1996 vide his endorsement Ex.PW8/A through Ct. Ram Niwas. He further deposed that one car bearing No.DL2CE3480 with sticker of Home Affairs, Govt. of India was also handed over to him by said Sh. Dushyant Singh. He further deposed that he seized the car vide seizure memo Ex.PW8/B and the sticker was also separately seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/A. PW8 proved the Car label as Ex.PW8/C, Parking slip, DL of the accused as well as photocopy of RC of car No.DL2CE3480 were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW8/D. He further deposed that driver of the said car was also handed over to him by Sh. Dushyant Singh. He further deposed that he interrogated the accused who disclosed that the sticker was provided by one Jaipal Singh. He further deposed that Jaipal Singh was also called and interrogated who confessed that he had handed over the said sticker to Mushtaq and disclosure statement of accused Mustaq was exhibited as Ex.PW6/A. He further deposed that similarly disclosure statement of accused Jaipal was exhibited as Ex.PW6/B. Personal search memo of accused Mushtaq is Ex.PW8/E and of accused Jai Pal is Ex.PW8/F. He further deposed that during the course of investigation a letter Ex.PW5/A was collected by him in this regard and it was revealed that the sticker in question were issued to vehicle No.MND1 and sticker was forged. He further deposed that he also collected one sample sticker from the complainant's office and same is Ex.S. He recorded the statement of prosecution witnesses and completed the challan. He identified both the accused persons. State Vs. Jai Pal Singh Etc. FIR No.48/1996 P.S. Tilak Marg 10
13. During crossexamination by Ld. counsel for accused Mustaq, PW8 deposed that accused Mushtaq and car was handed over to him by the complainant at the place of occurrence. He further deposed that at the same time the complaint was handed over to him by the complainant. He further deposed that the complaint was not reduced in writing by the complainant in his presence. He admitted that none of the accused was registered owner of the car seized by him. He did not remember as to how many other stickers were stick on the car in question nor he could tell their distinctive mark. He had verified the particulars of the car and had placed them on record. He did not know as to whether the car was for trial with Mushtaq. He further deposed that he did not record the statement of registered owner of the car. He had not investigated or inquired about the work place of registered owner. He admitted that accused Mushtaq told him that he was illiterate and he did not know what kind of sticker were pasted on the front screen of the car and he had also verified the said fact and found same is correct. He admitted that disclosure statement of accused Mushtaq was reduced in writing at the spot itself on the same day. He denied the suggestion that all the proceedings have been conducted by him while sitting in Police Station or that accused has been falsely implicated in the present case. He denied the suggestion that the sticker was removed from the car in question at the spot itself. He deposed that the photographer was called at the spot by him. He did not remember as to whether complainant Dushyant Singh and Mr. Sen were present at the spot while the spot was photographed. PW8 further deposed that the statement of PW Sen was subsequently recorded at PS during the course of investigation. He denied the suggestion that accused Mushtaq did not disclose any incriminating information or that his disclosure statement has been manipulated by him in order to falsely implicate him. He further deposed that he did not make any efforts to get the State Vs. Jai Pal Singh Etc. FIR No.48/1996 P.S. Tilak Marg 11 alleged tampering or writing on stickers Ex.PW4/A examined by any expert during the course of investigation. He denied the suggestion that he did not conduct any proceedings at the spot. He further deposed that he did not remember as to whether complainant and PW Mr. Sen visited the PS on the same day. He further deposed that he reached the place of occurrence at about 4.30 p.m. He admitted that public persons were present at the spot, however, he had not joined anyone of them nor recorded their statement. He also admitted that other vehicles were also parked there by the public persons. He denied the suggestion that accused has been falsely implicated in the present case or that accused Mushtaq had no concern with the parking label.
14. During crossexamination by the counsel for accused Jai Pal Singh, he deposed that he did not know if the parking label issued for vehicle No. MND1, was for private vehicle or Govt. vehicle. He could not tell to whom the said parking label was issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs. He admitted that Ex.PW5/A letter issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs does not contain the name of the accused Jaipal to receive the parking label issued for vehicle No. MND1. He could not tell the vehicle No. MND1 was under which Ministry or Secretary of Govt. being run. He admitted that he had not enquired from the Ministry of Home about the connection of accused Jaipal with the vehicle No. MND1. He admitted that on the day of incident, accused Jaipal was not present at the car or spot. He admitted that he had not enquired from the Ministry of Home Affairs whether the accused Jaipal was posted as driver on vehicle No. MND1. He denied the suggestion that he had implicated the accused Jaipal falsely in the present case or that he was not having any connection with the alleged parking label.
State Vs. Jai Pal Singh Etc. FIR No.48/1996 P.S. Tilak Marg 12
15. H. Ct. Sant Lal is PW9 who deposed that on 29.01.1996 he was posted as photographer in P.S. Parliament Street, District Line and on the instructions of IO of the present case, he was called at the spot of occurrence where he found one maruti car on which there was sticker of Parliament affixed on the said vehicle. On the instructions of IO, he took the photograph Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 and negatives are Ex.P4 to Ex.P6. During crossexamination he deposed that he did not remember at what time he had reached the spot. He further deposed that he was called to the spot by the IO through wireless set. He further deposed that he had gone to police station before going to the spot. He had gone to the spot alongwith the IO. He further deposed that he had left for his regular duty from the spot only. He could not say as to who was present at the spot when he reached at the spot alongwith IO. He could not say whether the sticker was seized by the IO in his presence or not. He had taken total four photographs. He could not say on which side of the road the car was parked. PW9 further deposed that he had gone to the spot alongwith the motorcycle rider who was from the police station. He denied the suggestion that the photographs were taken in the present case in the Police Station.
16. H. Ct. Ram Niwas is PW10 who deposed that on 19.01.1996 he was posted as Constable at P.S. Tilak Marg. He further deposed that on that day he was on emergency duty and on receipt of call by the IO, he alongwith IO went to office of External Affairs where he saw one car bearing no.DL2CE3480 standing bearing red colour parking label. He further deposed that accused and one complaint were handed over to the IO/ SI Lala Ram on which IO/SI Lala Ram prepared a tehrir and handed over the same to him for registration of FIR. He further deposed that he went to PS Tilak Marg and got the case registered and State Vs. Jai Pal Singh Etc. FIR No.48/1996 P.S. Tilak Marg 13 after some time he returned back to the Court alongwith the original tehrir and carbon copy of FIR and handed over the same to SI Lala Ram. He identified the sticker Ex.PW4/A which was affixed on the car on the day of occurrence.
17. During crossexamination PW9 deposed that when he reached the spot, Mohd. Mustaq was only present at the spot. He further deposed that accused Jaipal was not arrested in front of him. He deposed that he had joined the investigation in the present case only on the day of incident i.e. 29.01.1996. He deposed that on 29.01.1996 the IO of the present case had made efforts to find out the person on whose name the alleged stickers were issued, however, he did not know the name of the person on whose name the stickers were issued by the Ministry. He further deposed that the stickers bearing Srl.No.576 was affixed on the car. He did not know the registered owner of the car. He admitted that today before giving his statement in the Court he had read the police file and particulrs of the vehicle number and sticker number. He deposed that he had noted down on his left hand and same were still written on his hand and on the basis of these entries on his hand he was deposing in the Court. He denied the suggestion that he had not joined the investigation with the IO of this case. During cross examination by counsel for accused Mustaq he deposed that his statement was recorded by the IO at the spot. The statement of complainant was also recorded in his presence prior to the recording of his statement. His statement was recorded after about two hours of recording the statement of the complainant. He deposed that he did not know whether any person had arrived at the PS before he and IO left for the spot after receiving DD Entry. PW10 further deposed that he remained at the spot for 12 ½ hours. He deposed that accused Mushtaq was standing outside the car. He deposed that he did not remember whether any other person State Vs. Jai Pal Singh Etc. FIR No.48/1996 P.S. Tilak Marg 14 was present at the spot. He deposed that IO had driven the alleged Maruti car from the spot to the PS. He deposed that they had come on foot from the PS and he alongwith IO and accused persons had gne to PS in the car. He deposed that he did not remember whether any other person had come in the PS after their reaching the police station. He deposed that the photographs of the car alongwith the accused persons were also taken. The photographs were shown to the witness from the judicial file and he admitted that the accused persons are not standing alongwith the car. He could not say where the photographs were taken whether in the PS or at the spot. He deposed that he joined the investigation in the present case till about 8.00 p.m. He deposed that he had taken the rukka alone. He did not remember whether the written complaint was handed over by the complainant to the IO or that the IO had noted down the verbal complaint of the complainant. He denied the suggestion that he did not join the investigation in any manner in the present case or that he had not visited the spot of occurrence or that he had not taken the rukka to PS for registration of FIR or that he was deposing falsely in order to implicate the accused Mustaq or that he had identified the accused in the Court at the instance of Naib Court or that he was deposing falsely. PW10 deposed that the sticker was taken off from the wind screen of the car at the PS. He deposed that he did not remember in whose prsence it was taken off. He could not say how many stickers were affixed on the car.
18. No further witnesses were examined by the prosecution. Statement of accused persons was recorded on 14.03.2012 wherein they denied the allegations levelled by the prosecution and pleaded innocence.
19. Accused Mushtaq examined himself u/s. 315 Cr.P.C as DW1 to prove that State Vs. Jai Pal Singh Etc. FIR No.48/1996 P.S. Tilak Marg 15 he is illiterate. Accused deposed that he is doing the work of Ittar alongwith his elder brother and that he is illiterate and generally put his thumb impression. He stated that he can hardly write his name in Urdu with difficulty and that he was having proof of his illiteracy i.e. his passport, copy of which was tendered as Ex. DW1/A. During crossexamination, DW1 stated that he cannot even read and write the numerical and he denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
20. Final arguments were advanced at length by Sh. Honey Goel, Ld. APP for State, Sh. Naresh Kumar, Ld. Counsel for accused Jaipal and Sh. Hanif Mohammad, Ld. Counsel for accused Mushtaq.
21. I have considered the submissions and perused the record carefully.
22. In the present case, accused Jaipal and Mushtaq are facing charges for offences punishable u/s. 171/471/120B IPC. Now, so far as offence under Section 120B IPC is concerned, prosecution has failed to prove any connection between accused Jaipal and Mushtaq. There is no evidence on record that accused Jaipal and Mushtaq were known to each other or they had entered into criminal conspiracy to commit an offence. Thus, the offence u/s. 120B IPC is not proved against the accused persons.
23. Now, coming to the offence punishable u/s. 471 IPC, again, there is no evidence against accused Jaipal to establish that he had used as genuine a forged document. Neither was the accused Jaipal using the vehicle with the forged parking label nor is their any evidence that he had placed the sticker on the vehicle in question. For the same reason, offence u/s. 171 IPC is also not proved against State Vs. Jai Pal Singh Etc. FIR No.48/1996 P.S. Tilak Marg 16 accused Jaipal.
24. However, so far as accused Mushtaq is concerned, it is not in dispute that accused Mushtaq was driving the car bearing no. DL2CE3480 and had parked the same in the parking of Ministry of External Affairs office at Patiala House Courts and that the said vehicle was having a forged parking label meant to be used on government vehicles of Ministry of Home Affairs. Ld. Counsel for accused has argued that accused Mushtaq was not the owner of the Car in question and was not aware of the stickers pasted on the same. It has been further argued that accused Mushtaq is illiterate and thus, no intention could be imputed to him. Now, as far as the argument of ownership is concerned, the offence u/s. 171 IPC and 471 IPC nowhere requires that accused should have been owner of the car in question for committing the offence. It is sufficient if the accused has used a forged parking label on the car driven by him . In any case, from the record it can be gathered that accused Mushtaq had every intention of acquiring ownership of the car in question in as much as offence in question was committed on 29.01.1996 and accused had immediately moved an application before the concerned department on 08.02.1996 for transfer of vehicle in his name knowing fully well that the vehicle was involved in the present case. Infact the application for superdari was also filed by the accused immediately on 15.02.1996 which clearly shows that accused was using the vehicle for his own use and had every intention of acquiring its ownership on subsequent date.
25. So far as argument of illiteracy is concerned, perusal of the record shows that prior to commencment of trial in question, accused Mushtaq used to sign his name in urdu on the documents. For instance, on superdari applications, State Vs. Jai Pal Singh Etc. FIR No.48/1996 P.S. Tilak Marg 17 superdaginama, while receiving copies of documents etc., accused has signed his name in Urdu. Now, it if further argued that accused argues can sign his name but cannot read or write. However, if the accused can recognise the letters of his name, he can very well recognise number of the car written on the parking label. In any case, there was only one sticker pasted on the windscreen as is clear from the photographs Ex. P4 to Ex. P6 and that too was conspicuous enough for accused to know the purpose for which it was placed there. Be that as it may, before using the vehicle in question, accused ought to have inquired about the sticker from the owner of the car at the relevant time. Having failed to do so, accused cannot be heard to say that he was not aware as to what label was pasted on the Car. It might be that the accused had gained entry in parking of the office of Ministry of External Affairs due to the sticker pasted on windscreen of the car.
26. Clearly, accused Mushtaq has used as genuine a forged sticker meant for use on government vehicle belonging to Ministry of Home Affairs on a private vehicle driven by him and hence, from the entire conspectus, the offences punishable u/s. 171/471 IPC are made out against accused Mushtaq. Mushtaq accordingly stands convicted for the said offences punishable u/s. 171/471 IPC. However, nothing could be proved against accused Jaipal by the prosecution and hence he stands acquitted of the charges.
27. File be consigned to Record Room.
(Announced in open
Court on 12.02.2014) (Swati Katiyar)
MM, New Delhi
State Vs. Jai Pal Singh Etc.
FIR No.48/1996
P.S. Tilak Marg
18
FIR No. 48/1996
U/Sec. 471/171 IPC
P.S. Tilak Marg
12.02.2014
Present : APP for State.
Accused Mohd. Mushtaq and Jaipal in person.
Vide separate judgment the accused Mushtaq is convicted and accused Jaipal is acquitted of the offences punishable U/Sec. 471/171 IPC. Bail bond of accused Jaipal is extended U/Sec.437A Cr.P.C. for six months.
Put up for order on sentence qua accused Mohd. Mushtaq at 12.00 p.m. Copy of judgment be given free of cost to the convict.
(Swati Katiyar)
MM/ND/12.02.2014
At 12.00 p.m.
Present: Ld. APP for State.
Sh. Hanif Mohd. LD. Counsel for convict Mushtaq alongwith convict in person.
Ld. APP prays for maximum sentence to the convict on the ground that he was using a forged label and could have used the same elsewhere for illegal activities.
Ld. Counsel for convict submits that convict has been facing trial for the past 17 years and that he had used the label without any intention or knowledge qua the same. It is prayed that in the interest of justice, lenient State Vs. Jai Pal Singh Etc. FIR No.48/1996 P.S. Tilak Marg 19 sentence may be given to the convict.
Submissions heard. Record perused.
The allegations against the convict do not warrant grant of heavy punishment. In the interest of justice, convict is sentenced to the period already undergone and to pay fine of Rs.200/ U/Sec.171 IPC and Rs.300/ U/Sec.471 IPC. Fine paid vide receipt no.381996.
Copy of this order be given free of cost to the convict.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(Swati Katiyar) MM/ND/12.02.2014 State Vs. Jai Pal Singh Etc. FIR No.48/1996 P.S. Tilak Marg