Delhi District Court
State vs . Vijay Khanna. on 21 June, 2018
IN THE COURT OF VIJETA SINGH RAWAT,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE - 06 (NDD),
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI.
FIR No. 248/97
PS -Parliament Street
U/s - 420/468/471 IPC
State Vs. Vijay Khanna.
JUDGMENT
Part A - The lis at a glance A. Serial No. of the Case: 39034/16/16 B. Date of Commission: 06.01.1999 C. Name of the Complainant: Sh. R.K.Punj, Assistant General Manager (P.B.D), State Bank of India, Sansad Marg, New Delhi.
D. Name of Accused: Vijay Khanna, S/o Late Sh. Narayan Das
Khanna, R/o C-4/34, Safdar Ganj
Development Area, New Delhi.
Also At : House No. 9407, DLF-4, Gurgaon,
Haryana.
E. Offence complained of: 420/468/471 IPC
F. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.
G. Final Order: Acquitted
H. Date of such order: 21.06.2018
I. Date of Institution of Case: 06.01.1999
J. Judgment reserved on: 21.06.2018
Part B - A brief statement of reasons for the decision (As mandated u/s 355(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.) State Vs. Vijay Khanna Page 1/9 FIR No. 248/97
1. The present FIR was registered on a complaint by Sh. R.K.Punj, Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, Main Branch, Sansad Marg, alleging that on 11.06.1997 at about 11.00 AM, accused Vijay Khanna (hereinafter, referred to as "the accused") impersonated as Sh. Abhishek, grandson of Sh. Basudev Prasad who held account number 255/39137 and dishonestly induced the bank to issue cheque book in the name of the account holder on the basis of forged letter dated 10.06.1997 and thereby, committed offence punishable under Section 419 Indian Penal Code, (hereinafter, referred to as "IPC"). Further it has been alleged that on aforementioned date at about 1.00 PM, the accused again came to the bank and dishonestly induced the bank officials to encash cheque number 219226 of even date for sum of Rs. 50,000/- and thus, committed offence punishable under Section 420 IPC. It has also been alleged that the accused forged the letter aforementioned and the cheque a thus, committed offence under Section 471 IPC. Pursuant to the registration of FIR, a similar modus operandi was alleged qua cheque number 122285 dated 12.05.1997 for the same amount and the investigation qua that was joined herein.
2. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed on 06.01.1999 against the accused for offences punishable u/s 419/420/468/471 IPC. Documents in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C were furnished on 04.06.2001 to the accused.
3. Since Ld. Predecessor of this Court, was of the prima facie opinion that State Vs. Vijay Khanna Page 2/9 FIR No. 248/97 offences punishable u/s 419/420/471 of IPC were made out, charge u/s 240 Cr.P.C was framed under the aforesaid sections on 26.07.2004 against the accused. The accused did not plead guilty to the charge framed and claimed trial.
EVIDENCE
4. Thereafter, prosecution examined the following witnesses :-
I. PW1 Sh. Abhishek Kumar/Grandson of the account holder who deposed that he had not visited the bank or got any cheque encashed. He was duly cross examined.
II. PW2 Sh. Ashok Kumar Verma/Senior Assistant, Complainant Bank who deposed that on 11.06.1996, cheque bearing no. 219226 was sent to him by Sh.S.C Bhardwaj/PW-4 for entry into the ledger book. He tendered cheque as Ex.P-1 and attested copy of ledge book as Ex.PW2/1A. Despite opportunity, he was not cross examined. III. PW3 Ms. Meena Sachdeva/Special Assistant, Complainant Bank who deposed that on 12.05.1997 she had made entry of cheque number 122285 in the ledger account. She tendered the same in evidence as Ex.PX. She was duly cross examined.
IV. PW4 Sh. S.C.Bhardwaj who turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution. Though, he admitted his signature on Ex.PW4/A State Vs. Vijay Khanna Page 3/9 FIR No. 248/97 which mentions the particulars of the accused and seizure memo of Ex.PW4/B. He was duly cross examined by the State. V. PW5 SI Pritam Singh/Duty Officer who tendered FIR Ex.PW5/A in evidence. He was duly cross examined.
VI. PW6 Ct. Sanjay/Witness to the arrest of the accused who tendered arrest memo Ex.PW6/A in evidence. He was duly cross examined.
VII. PW7 Ct. Ramesh Chand who deposed regarding seizure of requisition slip for issuance of cheque book and original cheque vide Ex.PW7/A. He was duly cross examined.
VIII. PW9 Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Ld. ASJ who proved TIP proceedings Ex.PW9/A. Despite opportunity, he was not cross examined. IX. PW10 Sh. Vinod Kumar/Senior Assistant who entered the witness box in place of Sh. R.K.Punj/the complainant and tendered complainants Ex.PW10/A, 10/B & 10/C in evidence. He was duly cross examined. X. PW11 Sh. V.K.Kansal/Deputy Manager of the complainant bank who deposed in favour of the prosecution and was duly cross State Vs. Vijay Khanna Page 4/9 FIR No. 248/97 examined.
XI. PW 12 Ct. Amar Pal who deposed that he had accompanied the accused for medical examination at Dr. RML Hospital. Despite opportunity, he was not cross examined.
XII. PW8 Inspector Rajmal Meena, PW14 Inspector Arun and PW15 ACP Suman/Investigating Officer who deposed regarding various stages of investigation carried out by them. They were duly cross examined.
5. Prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated 07.10.2017.
6. Statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C was recorded on 08.06.2018 and he denied the incriminating evidences appearing against him and did not wish to lead defence evidence.
7. No final arguments have been advanced by the State. Final arguments were advanced by the accused himself, today.
8. This Court has given its thoughtful consideration to the material on record.
9. To secure conviction of accused persons u/s 419, the prosecution is State Vs. Vijay Khanna Page 5/9 FIR No. 248/97 required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused persons had cheated by way of impersonation. Thus, it is required that any of the following essentials be proved:
a. Pretension by a person to be some other person. b. Knowingly substituting one person by another. c. Representation that he or any other person is a person other than he or such person really is.
10. Further, to constitute offence punishable u/s 420 of the Code, it is required that following essentials should be proved beyond reasonable doubt:
a. That the accused practised deception upon the bank; b. Obtaining delivery of cheque book from the bank official. c. And got the forged cheques encashed as genuine.
11. Further, to secure conviction of accused u/s 471 of the Code, the prosecution was required to prove the following ingredients:
a. Fraudulently/dishonestly used the authority letter and cheques as genuine.
b. With knowledge or reason to believe that they were forged.
12. Coming to the facts of the present case, the nature of offence was required to be proved by way of circumstantial evidences. The law in that regard is no longer res integra. Reliance is placed upon Padalaveera Reddy Vs. State A.P.AIR 1990SC 79 where it has been held that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following tests.
"(1) the circumstances from which an inference of State Vs. Vijay Khanna Page 6/9 FIR No. 248/97 guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established;
(2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused;
(3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and (4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence."
13. However, on the appreciation of evidence led, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to satisfy the aforesaid test due to following reasons :
(a) It is the case of the prosecution that the cheques P-1 and P-X were having a rubber stamp without any signature of the account holder. However, the fate of the rubber stamp has not been investigated into and there is no iota of evidence connecting the rubber stamp to the accused. None of the investigating officers have deposed regarding the investigation carried out to recover the rubber stamp. An essential link in the chain of circumstantial evidence remained un-
investigated and the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt.
(b) PW-4 is a material witness who was the passing officer for the cheque in dispute. He failed to identify the accused as the person who approached him for issuance of cheque book. He also withstood the cross examination on the State Vs. Vijay Khanna Page 7/9 FIR No. 248/97 aforesaid aspect. Further PW11 during cross-examination admitted that a large number of customers used to visit the branch and therefore, he may not be able to identify all the persons who came to him for transaction and that he had met the accused only once. This admission renders his testimony on the aspect of identity of the accused inconclusive.
(c) A major contradiction has merged in the testimony of the material witnesses as to whether the accused impersonated as Abhishek. Whereas PW-4 has denied any impersonation, PW11 has deposed the accused impersonated as Abhishek and this contradiction goes to the root of the matter.
(d) The material witness who was instrumental in attributing the crime to the accused is the account holder Sh. Basudev who has not being examined despite the matter being on trial for several years. His application under Section 284 Cr.P.C also was kept in abeyance but not pressed upon.
(e) Lastly, the FSL report which is hereby Ex. Y (as it can be read in evidence under Section 293 Cr.P.C) is inconclusive and has failed to link the accused to the forgeries alleged.
14. In view of the above discussion, the accused is acquitted of the offences charged with.
15. Bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. Original documents be returned to rightful claimants after cancellation of endorsements. State Vs. Vijay Khanna Page 8/9 FIR No. 248/97
16. After compliance of Section 437A, file be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court (Ms. VIJETA SINGH)
on 21.06.2018 MM-06/Patiala House Courts
New Delhi.
State Vs. Vijay Khanna Page 9/9
FIR No. 248/97