Delhi District Court
No.779/94, Is A Reported Judgment Cited ... vs Union Of India 1989 I on 7 December, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER KUMAR GOYAL
ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE: FAST TRACK COURT
ROHINI:DELHI
SC No. 114/1/10
Unique Identification No. 02404R0999492003
CBI
Versus
Vijay Khanna
Son of late Sh. N.D. Khanna
R/o 9407, DLF IV,
Gurgaon, Haryana.
RC No. 5(S)/96/CBI SCBI/N.D.
FIR No. 200/94
PS - R.K. Puram
U/s. 120B of IPC/ 467/471/489 A & B of IPC
Date of Decision: 03/12/2011
Date of order on Sentence: 07/12/2011
Order on Sentence
07/12/2011
Present. Sh. Manoranjan, SPP for CBI.
Convict from J.C. with counsel Sh. Anil Lakra and counsel Sh.
Ghanshyam Sharma.
Heard on the point of sentence.
Learned defence counsel has contended that convict is aged about 65
SC No. 114/1/10 1
years. He is senior citizen having various ailments. Learned defence counsel
further submits that convict is suffering from diabetes for the last so many years
and his right big toe was amputated. Learned defence counsel further submits that
convict is suffering from liver problem and is taking 12 medicines to survive.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that convict has faced trial of this
case since 1994. He has two sons, who are posted outside Delhi. Wife of the
convict is also suffering from diabetes and is having heart problem with arthritis.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that except the convict, there is no
one in the family to look after his wife. Learned defence counsel has further
contended that if diabetes of the convict is not treated well, then there is
apprehension of amputation of left toe. Learned defence counsel further submits
that if the convict will remain behind the bars, then better treatment could not be
provided to him and these problem can aggravate further. Learned defence counsel
further submits that convict is not a previous convict.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that convict be given
benefit of probation of good conduct and in support of the same, has relied upon
2004 (114) DLT 132 titled as Sanjay V. State, wherein convict was released on
probation U/sections304 PartII, 452, 427,323/34 of IPC.
Learned defence counsel has further relied upon 2002 (3) AD (Delhi)
IV titled as Layak Ram V. State, wherein convict was released on probation of
good conduct U/s. 308/34 and 323 of IPC.
Learned defence counsel has further relied upon 2005 (124) DLT 322
titled as Naresh Dutta Sharma V. State, wherein convict was released on
probation U/s. 409 and 477A of IPC.
SC No. 114/1/10 2
On the other hand, Ld. SPP for CBI has contended that accused has
committed a serious offence and NRIs were targeted. Convict has also forged and
fabricated bank note i.e. draft of a foreign bank, hence, appropriate sentence be
imposed.
I have considered the above facts and circumstances alongwith age,
antecedents and character of the convict. Offences proved against the convict are
grave in nature and are punishable upto the life imprisonment, hence, I am not of
the view to release the convict on probation. Hence, request of learned defence
ocunsel is turned down.
Offence U/s. 120B of IPC is punishable with imprisonment in the same
manner as he has abetted such offence, which is punishable with death,
imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or
upwards.
Section 109 of IPC i.e. abetment is punishable with punishment
provided for the offence.
Accordingly, sentence of five years S.I. is imposed against the convict
for the offence U/s. 120B of IPC with fine of Rs. 5000/. In default of payment of
fine, he shall further undergo one and a half year SI.
Offence U/s. 467 of IPC is punishable with imprisonment for life or
with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 10 years
and shall also be liable to fine.
Accordingly, sentence of five years S.I. is imposed against the convict
for the offence U/s. 467 of IPC with fine of Rs. 5000/. In default of payment of
fine, he shall further undergo one and a half year SI.
SC No. 114/1/10 3
Offence U/s. 471 of IPC is punishable in the same manner as he has
forged such document.
Accordingly, sentence of five years S.I. is imposed against the convict
for the offence U/s. 471 of IPC with fine of Rs. 5000/. In default of payment of
fine, he shall further undergo one and a half year SI.
Offence U/s. 489A of IPC is punishable 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.
Accordingly, sentence of five years S.I. is imposed against the convict
for the offence U/s. 489A of IPC with fine of Rs. 5000/. In default of payment of
fine, he shall further undergo one and a half year SI.
Offence U/s. 489 B of IPC is punishable 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.
Accordingly, sentence of five years S.I. is imposed against the convict
for the offence U/s. 489B of IPC with fine of Rs. 5000/. In default of payment of
fine, he shall further undergo one and a half year SI.
In this case, due to forge and fabricated demand draft of 10,000 US
dollar credited in the account of N.K. Gupta was not received by Citi Bank and
N.K. Gupta only remitted 1975 US dollars to the Citi Bank and rest of the amount
was never paid, which caused a loss to Citi Bank in the year 1993 US $ 8025.
Accordingly, compensation to the tune of Rs. Five lacs is also imposed upon the
convict payable to the Citi Bank, Jeevan Bharti Building, Connaught Circus, New
Delhi.
SC No. 114/1/10 4
Fine and compensation not deposited.
Convict remained in custody 07/04/1994 to 19/08/94 and from
03/12/2011 till today.
Benefit of Section 428 of Cr.P.C. be given to the convict.
All the substantive sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently.
Compensation amount, if deposited, be released to the Citi Bank after
expiry of the period of limitation of filing of appeal. A notice to this effect be also
issued to Citi Bank, Jeevan Bharti Building, Connaught Circus, New Delhi..
Convict is remanded to JC to serve the sentence.
Announced in Open Court on
dated 7th of December, 2011 (Virender Kumar Goyal)
Additional Sessions Judge
Fast Track Court
Rohini : Delhi
SC No. 114/1/10 5
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER KUMAR GOYAL
ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE: FAST TRACK COURT
ROHINI:DELHI
SC No. 114/1/10
Unique Identification No. 02404R0999492003
CBI
Versus
Vijay Khanna
Son of late Sh. N.D. Khanna
R/o 9407, DLF IV,
Gurgaon, Haryana.
RC No. 5(S)/96/CBI SCBI/N.D.
FIR No. 200/94
PS - R.K. Puram
U/s. 420/467/468/471/489 A & B r/w 120 (B) of IPC
Date of institution of the case: 04/06/94
Arguments heard on: 29/10/2011
Date of reservation of order: 17/11/2011
Date of Decision: 03/12/2011
JUDGMENT
On the statement of one Virender Kumar Goyal , this case was registered U/s. 420/467/471/120B of IPC vide FIR No. 200/94 at PS R.K. Puram.
During investigation, accused got recovered certain documents from SC No. 114/1/10 6 his house. These were taken into possession. Report from the banks were also obtained. Photocopy of the power of attorney was also handed over by the complainant, on whose behalf, complaint was lodged. Specimen handwriting of accused was taken. His disclosure statement was recorded.
On completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 04/06/94 and lastly it was fixed for arguments on charge in the year 1996. Thereafter, matter was transferred to CBI. During investigation, CBI officials also collected documents from the bank to the extent that the bank draft involved in this case was forged and fabricated. FSL report was also obtained. Fresh specimen handwriting was taken.
On completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against accused Vijay Khanna U/s. 120B read with Section 420/467/468/471/489A and B of IPC. Chargesheet was filed U/s. 173(8) of Cr.P.C and the matter was taken up by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in the year 1986. Lastly, in the year 2003, case was committed to the Court of Session and was received by the Court of Session on 10/11/2003.
After hearing the arguments, charge was framed against accused Vijay Khanna on 22/05/2004 U/s. 120B read with Section 420/467/468/471 of IPC and U/s. 420/467/468/471/489A and B of IPC to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
To prove its case, prosecution has examined PW1 to PW14 in all. After completion of evidence of the prosecution, statement of accused was recorded. Accused has denied the case of the prosecution and has stated that there was Assistant Police Commissioner Mr. P.R.S Barar, who was putting a SC No. 114/1/10 7 pressure on him to help a Delhi business man namely Chauhan Jeweller, which he refused. When the pressure mounted and since he was out of country,his wife Radha Khanna filed a writ no.673/93 against the uncalled visits by the local police to their residence including SHO. After the Writ, they kidnapped him from the office of business man in Cannought Place on 04/04/94. Under that pressure, the Writ was withdrawn as non prosecution. Number of false cases were made against him after 04/04/94, while he was in custody. The police alongwith some criminals even dispossessed his family from house no. E224, Sainik Farm, New Delhi and forcefully occupied the house. His wife lodged a complaint with Ambedkar Nagar PS, FIR no. 259/94 against the police officer including Mr. P.R.S Barar and associates of this complainant. Later on, this FIR was also taken by CBI on their request and a case no. 19S, CBI Special Branch is pending against all the accused persons therein and they have been charge sheeted, which is pending in the Court of Ms Surya Malik Grover, Ld MM, Saket. Next date in that case is 16/12/10. Simultaneous to this FIR, they lodged a criminal writ in Delhi High Court no. 779/94 through which the Hon'ble High Court delivered them the possession of E224, Sainik Farm. While he was in custody, 8 criminal cases were charged against him in various courts of Delhi, which all were transferred to CBI through a letter of Home Secretary of India and he has been till today acquitted/discharged in four of those cases. Rest cases are pending for trial/disposal. The order of Writ no.779/94, is a reported judgment cited as Vijay Khanna Vs Union of India 1989 I JCC Delhi page 35. It is a false case against him and he is innocent.
In defence, accused has examined DW1 and DW2.
I have heard arguments on behalf of CBI by Sh. Manoranjan, Ld. SPP SC No. 114/1/10 8 and learned defence counsel Sh. Anil Lakra, counsel for accused and have gone through the material placed on record with evidence adduced.
Complainant has been examined as PW3. He has stated that Narender Kumar Gupta was introduced to him by Sudhir Shekhar, who was his client. N.K. Gupta was living abroad. He used to come to his sister in law at Pitam Pura. He was dealing in shares. During those days, companies had preferential quota for NRIs and N.K. Gupta had shown interest in purchasing shares under NRI quota and he wanted him to act on his behalf. N. K. Gupta executed GPA in favour of PW3 Virender Goyal. PW3 Virender Goyal has also produced photocopy of the same, which is Mark A, original of which was not traceable. PW3 has also produced another original power of attorney executed by N.K. Gupta in respect of his account dated 02/03/93 for operating his Citi Bank NRI account. A letter in this respect was addressed to the bank and the authority letter is Ex. PW3/A. PW3 has further deposed that N.K. Jain used to do export work and N.K. Gupta told him that he had to receive some money from N.K. Jain. N.K. Jain used to publish a magazine. In March, 1993, N.K. Gupta had come to India and told him that N.K. Jain was putting him away and was not returning his money, which he had taken as advance/loan. N.K. Gupta further told that N.K. Jain had assured him to return his money. N.K. Gupta further told that he would come to his office and PW3 should accompany him to N.K. Jain to receive money.
PW3 has further deposed that he alongwith N.K. Gupta went to the office of N.K. Jain at Daryaganj. N.K. Jain told that money, which was to be paid, shall be paid by way of draft and draft was in Hyatt Regency with some person named Vijay Khanna. They accompanied N.K. Jain in his car to Hyatt Regency. SC No. 114/1/10 9 When they reached there, Vijay was waiting for N.K. Jain. Vijay met them, who is accused present in the court. While they stayed in lobby, Vijay and N.K. Jain went out and after about 10 minutes, they came back in lobby and accused Vijay gave an envelope to N.K. Jain and thereafter Vijay Khanna left. N.K. Jain opened the envelope. There were more than one draft in the envelopes. He took one draft and gave to N.K. Gupta.
PW3 has identified the draft as Ex. PW2/6 before the Court, which was given by N.K. Jain to N.K. Gupta in his presence. On the next day, PW3 and N.K. Gupta went to Citi Bank and there draft Ex. PW2/6 was deposited and at that very time, letter Ex. PW3/1 was given to the bank authorizing PW3 to operate the bank account.
PW3 has further deposed that after about one month, he received phone call from N.K. Gupta that draft deposited in Citi Bank was found to be forged as per the bank. He then contacted N.K. Jain as he was told by N.K. Gupta that N.K. Jain was avoiding his call. N.K. Jain told him that draft in question was not forged. There was some credit system and if money is not deposited in time, then draft is not encashed and in any case, he would given another draft or otherwise would return the money.
PW3 has further deposed that talks between N.K. Jain and N.K. Gupta either for returning of money or making export of this much amount on behalf of N.K. Gupta continued for about 13 months. One T.C. Chopra, consultant, Citi Bank, came to PW3 Virender Goyal and PW3 took him to N.K. Jain. On the advise of PW2 T.C. Chopra, PW3 got a complaint about the forged draft made to the police. However, he told to T.C.Chopra that entire transaction had taken place SC No. 114/1/10 10 between N.K. Jain and N.K. Gupta and he was holding power of attorney.
PW3 has further deposed that he went to Crime Branch, Adarsh Nagar and identified accused Vijay Khanna, who was present in the Crime Branch. He told Crime Branch people that he had seen that man for just five minutes about 13 months before. So, he was not sure if he was Vijay. He requested them to call N.K. Jain, who was more closely associated with him. Thereafter, police accompanied him to N.K. Jain's place in Daryaganj and brought him at Crime Branch office, who recognized Vijay Khanna as the same person, who had given him the draft.
PW3 has further deposed that he did not make any statement to the Crime Branch. However, Crime Branch people made statement of their own, purportedly made by him and asked him to put his signatures on the statement telling that time was short and they had to produce the accused before the Court and was compelled to put his signatures on Ex. PW2/1, which is the same statement, which was prepared by Crime Branch and he was asked to sign at point A, where he had signed. PW3 has further deposed that he could not read his statement before signing. He even protested that they should not record the statement of their own. He further discussed the matter with Crime Branch and also inquired from them as to whether being power of attorney holder, he could make the complaint or not. He handed over the draft in question vide memo Ex. PW3/3. He had also handed over the photocopy of pay in slip.
Learned defence counsel has contended that PW3 has denied about making complaint Ex. PW2/1 and has further stated that he was compelled to sign the same. It was not read over to him nor he could read the same. So, registration SC No. 114/1/10 11 of FIR against the accused is baseless. Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW3 is also not sure about the identity of accused Vijay as the same person, who had handed over the draft in an envelope to N.K. Jain in Hyatt Regency Hotel. Learned defence counsel has further contended that N.K. Jain has not been examined and even N.K. Gupta, who had visited India for this transaction, has not been examined in any manner. Learned defence counsel has further contended that this is evident from the deposition of PW12 Pushpa Gupta that N.K. Gupta had visited India in the year 1994 or 1996, whereas the transaction in question is of 1993. So, PW3, who was merely general power of attorney for N.K. Gupta, cannot be believed in any manner.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that Citi Bank has not lodged any report at its own because Citi Bank was also cheated by presenting a forged and fabricated draft, which was encashed and later on, the bank came to know that it was forged one. Learned defence counsel has further contended that from the deposition of PW3, it is clear that identification of accused Vijay Khanna by PW3 is based on the identification made by N.K. Jain in the crime branch office, so he cannot be relied upon.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that due to some other litigations, accused has been falsely implicated in this case and he had also filed a writ petition alongwith his wife against other persons, who falsely implicated him in this case. Learned defence counsel has further contended that reason of false implication has been deposed by DW1 Radha Khanna, who is wife of accused.
On the other hand, learned SPP for CBI has contended that there were cases against the accused and were also filed by the accused and even charge SC No. 114/1/10 12 sheets were filed in the cases, which were lodged at the instance of accused Vijay Khanna. So, it cannot be said that CBI has falsely implicated accused in this case.
This case was registered by the Crime Branch and PW3 has identified his signatures on complaint Ex. PW2/1. So, it cannot be said that he had not made any complaint. Merely that he could not read the statement does not mean that no such statement was made by him. During examination, PW3 has not been able to point out any fact, which was not told by him, but was recorded by the Crime Branch in his statement. The apprehension, which seems to be in the mind of PW3, was that whether he could have lodged the complaint regarding forged draft being attorney of N.K. Gupta or not. PW3 has identified the accused before the Court. PW3 has neither been cross examined regarding the complaint nor about the identity of accused Vijay Khanna and merely on the facts, as deposed by PW3, that he was called in the Crime Branch office, where he was not sure as to whether accused Vijay Khanna was the same person, so, N.K. Jain was called to identify accused Vijay Khanna, who told that Vijay Khanna had given him the draft, cannot be basis of identification of accused Vijay Khanna by PW3 before the Court. So, the contention of learned defence counsel is baseless.
If no such complaint was made by PW3 and he was compelled to put his signatures on the same, then why PW3 did not make any complaint to senior officers at any time and in the year 2004, after about 11 years, it does not hold any good reason to disbelieve PW3 that he did not make any complaint and that he has identified accused Vijay Khanna before the Court on the basis of identification made by N.K. Jain in the Crime branch office at that time.
I have gone through the photocopies of the proceedings filed by SC No. 114/1/10 13 accused and deposition of DW1 Radha Khanna, but the same are not linking in any manner to this case that for those reasons, accused Vijay Khanna was falsely implicated in this case. N.K. Jain could not be examined as he expired. Accused has also gave the same explanation that regarding some other reasons, he has been falsely implicated in this case, but has not been able to connect the same with this case in any manner. Merely that N.K. Gupta has not been examined, who had visited India in 1994 or 96, does not mean that no offence was committed or that PW3 has deposed falsely. PW3 has produced one power of attorney executed by N.K. Gupta in his favour and beside that, anyone can get lodge such complaint to set the wheel of justice in motion. So, PW3 cannot be disbelieved in any manner on the basis of the fact that he was not sure about the identity of accused Vijay Khanna in the Crime branch office and was compelled to put his signatures on complaint Ex. PW2/1.
PW3 has not deposed some other facts contrary to complaint Ex. PW2/1 nor he has been cross examined with the complaint or its contents in any manner. Whatever the transaction was in between N.K. Jain and N.K Gupta, but testimony of PW3 is inspiring confidence and he can be relied upon that he alongwith N.K. Gupta had gone to Hyatt Regency, where accused Vijay Khanna was waiting for N.K. Jain. Vijay met them. While they stayed in the lobby, accused Vijay Khanna and N.K. Jain went out and thereafter they again came back in the lobby and thereafter accused Vijay Khanna gave an envelope to N.K. Jain and left from there. N.K. Jain opened the envelope. There were more than one draft in the envelopes. He took one draft and gave it to N.K. Gupta and later on, he came to know from N.K. Gupta that draft was found to be forged. SC No. 114/1/10 14
PW4 Inspector Bishan Mohan has stated that on 07/04/94, he was posted as SI at Crime branch, Adarsh Nagar. On that day, he recorded statement of one Virender Kumar Goyal in respect of cheating done to him by accused Vijay Khanna. He prepared ruqqa and got registered a case through Constable Ranbir after making endorsement through his reader Rakesh Kumar on Ex. PW3/2. He had gone to the farm house of accused at Sainik Vihar and copy of bank draft was seized vide memo Ex. PW4/A. PW4 has further deposed that on 08/04/94, complainant handed over to him photocopy of bank draft and photocopy of report of Citi Bank. He seized the same vide memo Ex. PW3/3. On 02/05/94, one Tek Chand Chopra of Citi Bank handed over to him original bank draft and his report and he seized the same vide memo Ex. PW2/2. The original bank draft is Ex. PW2/6 and report is Ex. PW2/1.
PW4 has further deposed that on 23/05/94, one Tek Chand Chopra handed over to him one document, which was seized vide memo Ex. PW2/3, i.e. one letter dated 11/05/94 of Citi Bank, addressed to Crime Branch Office alongwith fax message from Chemical Bank, one photocopy of Chemical Bank, Los Angeles, California, draft of US dollar 10000 of N.K. Gupta Ex. PW2/3.
PW4 has further deposed that on 10/04/94, specimen handwriting of accused was taken, which is Ex. Pw4/B collectively. These were witnessed by Constable Narender and Constable Ram Niwas. Thereafter, he was transferred from Crime Branch and further investigation was done by ASI Karan Singh.
In the cross examination, PW4 has denied that Virender Goyal had not made any complaint and has further denied that he himself prepared the complaint and asked Virender Goyal to sign the same or that Virender Goyal had not gone SC No. 114/1/10 15 through the complaint before signing.
PW4 has denied the suggestion that copy of draft was not found at the farm house of accused. PW4 has further denied that Mr. P.S. Brar, who was DCP, North at that time, wanted to grab the property of the wife of accused i.e. Radha Khanna and in order to pressurize her, a case was registered against her husband accused Vijay Khanna. Mr P.S. Brar had nothing to do with the crime branch. PW4 has denied the suggestion that he was used as a tool by his senior police officers to falsely implicate the accused and that he did not obtain specimen signatures of accused.
Regarding the recovery of copy of draft from the farm house of accused, only suggestion has been given, which had been denied by PW4. The copy was seized by PW4 during investigation and thereafter only complainant handed over copy of the bank draft to PW4 on 08/04/94 and on 23/05/94, one T. C.Chopra handed over the original draft to PW4. So, at the time of recovery of photocopy of draft from the farm house of accused Vijay Khanna at Sainik Vihar, PW4 was not possessing the photocopy of the bank draft in question with him, so it cannot be said that the same was available with him to plant the same against accused showing the same to be recovered from the house of accused Vijay Khanna.
Photocopy of the draft recovered from the farm house at Sainik Vihar of accused Vijay Khanna, which was seized vide memo Ex. PW4/A, was prior to the photocopy of draft handed over by the complainant and was also prior to the original bank draft handed over by T.C. Chopra to the IO and the same was got recovered by the accused after his disclosure statement Ex. PW5/A dated SC No. 114/1/10 16 07/04/94. Not only this, according to seizure memo Ex. PW4/A, in all, photocopies of three international drafts were recovered from the possession of accused and if accused was not involved in any manner, then why he was keeping the photocopies of drafts with him, which were recovered on his pointing from his house. The testimony of PW4 Inspector Bishan Mohan regarding recovery of photocopy of bank draft from the house of accused Vijay Khanna, which was seized vide memo Ex. PW4/A, in the name of N.K. Gupta, is unrebutted as only suggestion has been given that the copy of draft was not found in the house of accused. PW4 cannot be disbelieved in any manner regarding the recovery of the photocopy of draft from the house of accused Vijay Khanna.
PW1 ASI Vijay Kumar has stated that on 07/04/94, he was posted as DO at PS R.K. Puram from 4.00 p.m. to 12 midnight. Constable Ravinder brought ruqqa from SI Bishan Mohan and after receiving the ruqqa, he recorded FIR of this case, copy of which is Ex. PW1/A. He also made endorsement on ruqqa Ex. PW1/B and handed over copy of FIR to Constable Ravinder for further necessary action. PW1 has not been cross examined by learned defence counsel in any manner. So, PW1 has corroborated with PW4 Inspector Bishan Mohan that Inspector Bishan Mohan after recording statement of PW3 Virender Kumar Goyal got registered a case against the accused.
This fact has also been further corroborated by PW6 Constable Ranbir, who has stated that on 07/04/94, he was working in Crime Branch, Adarsh Nagar. He was given ruqqa by PW4 Inspector Bishan Mohan, the then SI, which he took to PS R.K. Puram and got registered FIR and thereafter came back with copy of FIR and original ruqqa to Crime Branch, Adarsh Nagar, and handed over the SC No. 114/1/10 17 same to SI Bishan Mohan. He also accompanied SI Bishan Mohan to the house of accused Vijay Khanna at Sainik Farm House in April, 1994. Some papers were recovered from the house. One photocopy of draft of US dollar 10000 was also recovered. He signed the seizure memo at point A. PW6 has been confronted in the cross examination by learned defence counsel that he has not stated in his statement Ex. PW5/DA that copy of draft was recovered in his presence. PW6 has further stated that they had gone on 08/04/94 and accused pointed out his house. PW6 has denied the suggestion that copy of draft was not recovered in his presence or he had not gone to the house of accused. Merely PW6 has been confronted with statement Ex. PW6/DA with the fact that he had not told about the recovery of copy of draft in his statement does not mean that he has deposed falsely. It is not suggested to PW6 that photocopy of draft was already available with them and the same was planted upon the accused. PW6 has not been cross examined even on the fact that copy of draft was obtained from the complainant or from T.C. Chopra and thereafter seizure memo was fabricated against the accused. So, the contention of learned defence counsel is not forceful in any manner. Accused got recovered the photocopy of draft Mark X in furtherance of his disclosure statement.
PW5 is ASI Rakesh Kumar. He was also posted in Crime Branch, Adarsh Nagar as Constable and was working as Reader on 07/04/94. He has further stated that one Virender Goyal came to Inspector Prithvi and Inspector Bishan Mohan. He was called to record statement of Virender Goyal. The Inspectors kept on making inquiries from Virender Goyal and he kept on recording statement of Virender Goyal, which is Ex. PW3/2, which was signed by SC No. 114/1/10 18 Virender Goyal in his presence. It was attested by Inspector Bishan Mohan at point B. PW5 has further deposed that on 07/04/94, he recorded disclosure statement of accused Vijay Khanna at the Crime branch office, which is Ex. PW5/A. In the cross examination, PW5 has denied the suggestion that on 07/04/94 , complainant Virender Goyal had not come to Crime Branch and had not made any statement. Learned defence counsel has contended that in the cross examination, PW5 has stated that statement was made to him by the complainant and not to Inspector Prithvi or Inspector Bishan Mohan and he recorded statement of complainant and he has further stated that both the IOs have already made inquiries and he was called after they had made inquiries to record his statement. Be as it may be, either statement was recorded of complaint during inquiry made by inspector Prithvi and Inspector Bishan Mohan or by PW5 at the instance of complainant, the same proves that statement was made by the complainant and was recorded in Crime Branch office. So, PW5 has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubts that statement was made by complainant voluntarily, which also corroborate with the depositions of other witnesses that complainant made statement, on which, after making endorsement, PW4 Inspector Bishan Mohan got registered a case.
PW5 has denied the suggestion that accused was forced to issue a cheque of Rs. 80 lacs in the name of Chauhan Jewellers at Crime Branch or that cheque book was called from his house. PW5 has been further cross examined that accused Vijay Khanna was assured that his property would not be grabbed, if SC No. 114/1/10 19 he will issue cheque of Rs. 80 lacs in the name of Chauhan Jewellers. All such facts have been denied by PW5 for want of knowledge. Regarding the recording of disclosure statement by PW5, his testimony is unrebutted and unshaken. Nothing has come out from his cross examination to disbelieve that disclosure statement of accused Vijay Khanna was not recorded by PW5. PW5 has denied the suggestion that accused did not make any disclosure statement and his signatures were obtained on the same after fabricating the same.
PW2 is T.C. Chopra. He joined the Citi Bank, Delhi, in the year 1992 as Consultant in Fraud Control unit. He had handed over certain documents to Crime Branch officials in this case and had also conducted inquiry with regard to the case. He had handed over the original bank draft vide letter dated 02/05/94 Ex. PW2/1. It was seized by the IO vide memo Ex. PW2/2 and he had signed as a witness on the same. Fax message with the letter of DSP concerned was also seized vide memo Ex. PW2/3. Photocopy of the fax message is Ex. PW2/4 and copy of letter is Ex. PW2/5. The original draft is Ex. PW2/6.
PW2 has further deposed that N.K. Gupta was having bank account in Citi Bank No. 5043410018 and in the month of March, 1993, draft of 10000 US Dollar was deposited in the said account supposedly issued by Chemical Bank, Los Angeles.
PW2 has further deposed that he conducted inquiries and complainant Virender Goyal took him to one N.K. Jain in Daryaganj, who informed that draft was given to him by Vijay Khanna. He had also seen accused Vijay Khanna, when he was brought to Citi Bank. N.K. Jain was at Citi Bank and told that the person brought by Crime Branch was Vijay Khanna.
SC No. 114/1/10 20
PW2 has further deposed that Citi Bank had credited bank draft in the NRI account of N.K. Gupta without obtaining any confirmation from Chemical Bank, but later on informed that draft was forged vide telex message Ex. PW2/4 and there was no Chemical bank in Los Angeles, and so, no such draft could be issued. PW2 has further deposed that N.K. Jain, who has expired now, and complainant Virender Goyal both had stated that they will arrange money and will pay to the bank, but they did not do it. PW2 has also identified accused Vijay Khanna as the same person, who was pointed out by N.K. Jain as Vijay Khanna, who had given the draft.
In the cross examination, PW2 has denied the suggestion that N.K. Jain never disclosed to him that draft was handed over to him by accused Vijay Khanna or he had not seen accused Vijay Khanna in his office with police or N.K. Jain had not identified Vijay Khanna there. Merely that no action was taken against complainant or N.K. Jain for not depositing the money in the bank does not mean that no such fraud was played upon the bank as N.K. Jain has expired and he could not be produced before the Court. PW2 has also corroborated with PW3 complainant Virender Goyal to the fact that he took PW2 to N.K. Jain. So, the testimony of PW2 inspire confidence regarding the fact that bank draft was forged one and he handed over the documents i.e. original bank draft and telex message in this respect to the IO, which were taken into possession. This fact has also been corroborated by PW4 Inspector Bishan Mohan that on 02/05/94, T.C. Chopra had handed over to him original bank draft and his report, which were seized vide memo Ex. PW2/2 and Ex. PW2/1. He further handed over another document on 23/05/94, which was seized vide memo Ex. PW2/3 i.e. fax message from SC No. 114/1/10 21 Chemical Bank. Neither PW2 nor PW4 has been cross examined in any respect that the original bank draft was planted upon the accused or that the fax message of the Chemical Bank was also a fabricated document.
From the deposition of PW2, prosecution has also been able to prove beyond reasonable doubts that after depositing the alleged forged bank draft, Citi bank had also credited the amount of the bank draft in the account of Sh. N.K. Gupta and despite assurance given by N.K. Jain and complainant Virender Goyal, they did not deposit the amount in the bank. If no action was taken by the bank against N.K. Jain or complainant Virender Goyal, then it was for the bank and not for T.C. Chopra. So, merely that he did not take any action or did not advise bank to take any action does not mean that he had not handed over the documents to the IO and had not seen accused Vijay Khanna, who was pointed out by N.K. Jain in the bank itself, when he was brought there. So, further identity of accused Vijay Khanna has also been proved as the same person, who had handed over the draft to N.K. Jain and that the bank draft, which was deposited in the bank, was forged one.
PW4 Inspector Bishan Mohan has also deposed that on 10/04/94, specimen handwriting of accused was also taken and was witnessed by Constable Narender and Ct Ram Niwas.
PW13 Constable Narender Singh has stated that in 1994, he was posted in Crime Branch, Adarsh Nagar. In his presence, specimen signatures of accused Vijay Khanna were taken by SI Bishan Mohan. He signed as a witness on Ex. PW13/A and Ex. PW13/B. Constable Ram Niwas was also present at that time and his signatures were also obtained as a witness.
SC No. 114/1/10 22
PW4 Inspector Bishan Mohan has not been cross examined in any manner regarding taking of specimen signatures of accused on 10/04/94. Hence, his testimony is unrebutted and unshaken in this respect. PW13 Constable Narender Singh has been cross examined in this respect, who has stated that his statement was recorded on 10/04/94 and the signatures were obtained in Adarsh Nagar Crime branch. PW13 has denied the suggestion that no specimen handwriting was given by accused Vijay Khanna in his presence and he has not signed on Ex. PW13/A and Ex. PW13/B as a witness. So, nothing came out from his cross examination to disbelieve his testimony regarding the fact that specimen writing of accused Vijay Khanna was taken by PW4 Inspector Bishan Mohan in presence of PW13 Constable Narender and another witness Constable Ram Niwas.
Learned defence counsel has contended that specimen writing obtained of the accused during police custody without the permission of the Court of competent jurisdiction cannot be considered and in support of the same has relied upon 2009(3) LRC 7 titled as Avdesh & Ors. V. State.
In this case, accused was apprehended and arrested on 07/04/94 and his specimen writing was obtained on 10/04/94. Neither PW4 nor PW13 have been cross examined as to whether accused was in police custody, when his specimen handwriting was obtained. There is no record that any permission was obtained from the Court, but from the applications of remand moved by the IO, it seems that three days police custody remand was obtained by the IO on 08/04/94, which was given till 10/04/94 and thereafter it seems that accused was remanded to J.C. So, it is not clear whether specimen handwriting of accused Vijay Khanna was taken with the permission of the Court or during his police custody by the IO, SC No. 114/1/10 23 as deposed by him, in presence of witness PW13 Constable Narender Singh.
Report u/s. 173(8) of Cr.P.C. was also filed as specimen handwriting and documents were sent to CFSL for examination and according to the report, more sheets of specimen and admittedly genuine writing and signatures of accused and of the alleged persons were required and it is not known whether further specimen handwriting and signatures sheets were given to the CFSL or not. So, neither the said CFSL official has been examined nor is cited as a witness. Hence, prosecution has not been able to prove in any manner that the specimen handwriting taken of accused on 10/04/94 by PW4 Inspector Bishan Mohan in presence of PW13 Constable Narender was obtained with the permission of the Court and more so, for want of sufficient specimen and admitted handwriting and signatures, so this whole exercise of specimen handwriting is of no consequence.
According to PW4 Inspector Bishan Mohan, further investigation was done by ASI Karan Singh. PW7 SI Karan Singh has stated that in May, 94, he received investigation of this case, while he was working as ASI in Crime Branch. During that period, he had studies the file and sent the specimen signatures already taken by previous IO to FSL. PW7 has not been cross examined in any manner.
Thereafter, the investigation was handed over to CBI. PW14 Sh. R.S. Rawat, the then Inspector CBI, has stated that investigation of this case was handed over to him in the year 1996 and he conducted the same till 1997. He had recorded the statements of witnesses. He took specimen signatures of Vijay Khanna, which are at page 45 to Page 59 and page 115 to 133 collectively exhibited as Ex. PW8/C. PW14 has also identified the signatures of witness Constable Vijender Singh.
SC No. 114/1/10 24
PW14 has further deposed that he also took writing of Vijay Khanna at pages No. 61 to 71 of the judicial file collectively exhibited as Ex. PW14/A1 to Ex. PW14/A6 and has identified the signatures of witness Sandeep Chaudhary. He also took specimen signatures of Radha Khanna, which are collectively exhibited as Ex. PW14/B1 to B11, witnessed by Sandeep Chaudhary and Constable Vijender Singh. He had also taken specimen signatures of complainant Virender Goyal collectively as Ex. PW14/C1 to C10 and has identified the signatures of witness Sandeep Chaudhary. He had also taken the writing of complainant Virender Goyal collectively exhibited as Ex. PW14/D1 to D5, witnessed by Sandeep Chaudhary and has also taken further writing of complainant Virender Goyal Ex. PW14/E1 to E19, witnessed by Constable Vijender Singh. He had also taken signatures of Vikas Khanna Ex. PW14/F1 to Ex. PW14/F15, witnessed by Constable Vijender.
PW14 has further stated that he sent letter dated 05/12/96 to Citi Bank for some documents. The letter is Ex. PW10/B and the documents were sent by Citi Bank vide letter Ex. PW10/B dated 11/12/96 and the documents have already been exhibited as Ex. PW10/C. He also received documents alongwith covering letter dated 06/01/97 from Punjab National Bank. The covering letter was accompanied by five documents. The covering letter with documents is Ex. PW14/G1 to G6 collectively. He had also received the report of CFSL dated 07/01/97 Ex. PW8/B and after investigation, he handed over further investigation to Sh. K.S. Negi, Inspector.
PW9 is Sandeep Chaudhary, Inspector CBI. During the year 199596, he was posted as SI in SCB1 CBI, New Delhi, and had signed as a witness on the specimen sheets Ex. PW8/C collectively. He had also witnessed specimen SC No. 114/1/10 25 handwritings of Vijay Khanna, Radha Khanna and Virender Goyal. The aforesaid persons gave their specimen signatures and writings voluntarily without any pressure or force.
In the cross examination, he has stated that specimen was given by accused Vijay Khanna in their office at IInd Floor, Block No.4, office of Superintendent of Police, SCB 1, CGO complex, Lodhi Road. The accused was directed to give his own signatures voluntarily. PW9 has denied the suggestion that accused has not given his specimen at his own sweet will, but was forced to write and give the specimen.
PW9 has further stated in the cross examination that no document was produced before Vijay Khanna at the time of taking his specimen. PW9 has also denied the suggestion that signatures of witness were not taken at that time, but were obtained after sometime or he was not present at the time of giving specimen handwriting by accused.
Nothing came out material from the cross examination of PW9 about taking of specimen signatures and writing of accused Vijay Khanna. Accused had given his specimen in the office of CBI, so, it cannot be said that accused was forced or directed in any manner to give his specimen writing and signatures. From the deposition of PW9, it is clear that at that time, accused was not in the police custody in any manner.
PW14 R.S. Rawat, the then Inspector CBI, has also stated that specimen was taken in the office and PW9 Sandeep Chaudhary was present at that time. PW14, the then Inspector CBI R.S. Rawat has denied the suggestion that accused was directed by him to write in the manner and style as per the questioned SC No. 114/1/10 26 document.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW14 has admitted that questioned documents were shown to the accused, whereas PW9 Sandeep Chaudhary has stated that no document was shown to the accused at the time of taking of specimen writing and signatures,so, the contradiction is material. Hence, both the witnesses cannot be believed in respect of the handwriting and specimen signatures obtained of the accused, as deposed by them. Learned defence counsel has further contended that there is no date, month or year mentioned in Ex. PW8/C. So, it cannot be said as to when these specimen signatures and writings of accused were obtained.
In my view, the contentions of learned defence counsel are not forceful in any manner because neither PW9 Sandeep Chaudhary nor PW14 has been cross examined that at the time of obtaining of handwriting and signatures, accused Vijay Khanna was in custody. In my view, nothing came out from the cross examination of PW9 and PW14 that specimen handwriting and signatures of accused were obtained forcibly under any pressure because whenever these were obtained, accused did not file any protest petition later on before the Court at any time that his specimen handwriting and signatures were obtained by the CBI forcibly under pressure. So, merely that date, month and year is not mentioned on these specimen handwriting and signatures sheets and that the document in question was shown to the accused or not are not material because from the testimonies of PW9 and PW14, prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubts that during investigation, accused himself gave his specimen handwriting and signatures in the office of CBI, which was taken by PW14 and SC No. 114/1/10 27 was witnessed by PW9 Sandeep Chaudhary.
These specimen handwriting and signatures were sent to FSL with admitted documents and were examined by PW8 Sh. V.K. Khanna, who has deposed about his education and experience and has further deposed that he had received certain documents from SP CBI, SCP, New Delhi. These were examined by him and he gave his report Ex. PW8/A. The draft in question is Ex. PW2/6 and has been marked for three questioned points i.e. Q1, Q2 and Q3. According to opinion of PW8, Q3 was written on the document in question i.e. signatures of the authorized person on the bank draft on behalf of Chemical Bank, Los Angeles, California, were from the person responsible for writing the specimen writing and signatures S1 to S14 and S36 to S45. According to the report, S1 to S14 specimen writings and signatures are of accused Vijay Khanna and S36 to S45 also pertains to accused Vijay Khanna.
In the cross examination, PW8 has denied the suggestion that he had not given his opinion based on any scientific reason or that his report is not correct. So, nothing came out from the cross examination of PW8 to disbelieve his testimony. Hence, prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubts that on the draft in question, signatures appearing at Q3 were written by accused Vijay Khanna as per report of PW8 V.K. Khanna Ex. PW8/A. In defence, accused has also examined DW2 Sh. V. C. Mishra. He has stated that for the last 23 years, he is examining documents and finger prints and submitted opinions in the Court of law in India and abroad. He is B.Sc, LLB and has passed PG Certificate of Forensic Science from Delhi University. He is Senior Lecturer of Forensic Science at Amity University, Sector125, Noida. He SC No. 114/1/10 28 examined one disputed draft dated 24/02/93 Ex. PW2/6 marked by him as Q3 on the photograph. He had compared the disputed handwriting written as "John Debris Cecialpaul" with the sample handwriting marked as S1, S2 and S37 provided by Vijay Khanna. After scientific comparison, according to his opinion, the disputed handwriting marked Q3 on Ex. PW2/6 has not been written by the writer, who has provided his specimen handwriting marked S1, S2 and S37. His report in this respect is Ex. DW2/A. The photographs of the documents taken in Court are Ex. X1 to X4.
Ld. SPP for CBI has cross examined DW2 Sh. V.C. Mishra at length, wherein he has stated that he has not filed any document with his report Ex. DW2/A regarding his experience and qualification. Learned SPP for CBI has contended that in absence of any such document regarding experience and qualification, it cannot be believed that DW2 is an handwriting expert in any manner.
In my view, handwriting marked as Q3 has been compared with the writings S1, S2 and S37, which are the specimen handwritings of accused taken during investigation, which shows that accused is not disputing his specimen handwriting taken during the investigation. Now, it is a matter of difference of opinion. Firstly, in absence of documents regarding experience and qualification, DW2 cannot be relied upon. Secondly, at least, all documents have to be examined by DW2 as were examined by PW8 Sh. V.K. Khanna, Principal Scientific Officer, CFSL, CBI, New Delhi. PW8 had examined S1 to S14 and S36 to S45, whereas DW2 had examined only S1, S2 and S37, which were not sufficient to give a proper and accurate opinion regarding Q3 as to whether it was written by accused SC No. 114/1/10 29 or not. It is evident from the fact on record that earlier Crime Branch had taken specimen signatures of accused and during examination, the same were found insufficient for giving opinion by the FSL. So, it cannot be said that sufficient specimen handwriting was examined with Q3 by DW2. Hence, his evidence cannot be relied upon in any manner.
During investigation with CBI, PW10 Sh. Chinmoy Dutta also joined the investigation as he was posted as Manager in Citi Bank. In the year 1993, they were having bank account of one N.K. Gupta bearing No. 5043410018. PW10 has identified the signatures of Chhavi Prabhakar through whom documents related to this case were given to R.S. Rawat, Inspector CBI. PW10 has identified signatures of Chhavi Prabhakar at point A as she had worked with him. The document is Ex. PW10/A. It was given to CBI in response to notice dated 05/12/96. It was received in their bank Ex. PW10/B. The statement of account is Ex. PW10/C in two pages from 03/07/1992 to 03/09/1996. Ex. PW2/6 is the draft, which was presented in their bank for clearance in the account of N.K. Gupta. The draft was credited in his account on 19/03/93 in Indian rupees @ 31.13 p. On the next day i.e. 20/03/93, an amount of Rs. 3 lacs was deposited in account of Neeraj Disnor through cheque No. 197741. The certified copy of the said cheque is Ex. PW10/D. PW10 has further deposed that thereafter, bank came to know about nonexistence of Chemical Bank in Los Angeles, which implied that the cheque was forged one since no such bank existed in Los Angeles. Thereafter, the account holder was contacted with a view to return the money credited into his account. On 07/07/93, bank had received a payment of Rs. 61574/ through US SC No. 114/1/10 30 dollar 1975. The outstanding amount after adjusting the credit in aforesaid account was Rs. 62523.51 paisa.
In the cross examination, PW10 has stated that draft was deposited in Jeevan Bharti Building branch of Citi Bank. Since no other draft was deposited by the account holder, so, he can tell that the payment was in respect of draft in question. Within two weeks, they came to know that draft deposited by the account holder was forged. They had also intimated to Legal Cell of the bank about the same. The account holder had also deposited 1975 US Dollar in lieu of the part payment of the forged draft with the bank and they had further requested the account holder to deposit the entire amount, but neither he contacted nor they contacted the account holder and after paying 1975 US dollars, the account holder stopped financial dealing with the bank.
So, from the cross examination of PW10, nothing came material to disbelieve his testimony that the bank draft was not deposited by the account holder and was not forged one or that no amount of the draft was credited in the account of N.K. Gupta. From the testimony of PW10, prosecution has also been able to prove the fact that on revealing forgery, bank demanded the credited amount from N.K. Gupta, out of which, He paid 1975 US Dollars and thereafter stopped financial dealing with the bank. Had the bank not been cheated by depositing the forged draft and credited the payment, N.K. Gupta was not required to deposit 1975 US Dollars in the bank in this respect.
PW11 K.S. Negi, Inspector CBI has stated that he was posted as Inspector in SCB Branch, New Delhi, since 1997. On the repatriation of this case Sh. R.S. Rawat to his parent department, all the documents including statements of SC No. 114/1/10 31 the witnesses were handed over to him on 03/11/97 for further necessary action. Since investigation had already been completed, so, he submitted the chargesheet and in the cross examination, he has stated that he had not done any investigation of this case. So, he is a witness of formal nature.
Accordingly, all the witnesses examined by the prosecution have corroborated each other and they inspire confidence. Nothing has been brought on record that all these witnesses were interested to depose falsely against the accused. Even it seems to be improbable that to falsely implicate the accused, the police in connivance with some other persons, as alleged, had taken so much pain about the deposit of forged and fabricated draft and to obtain the report on the same from Chemical Bank, Los Angeles, California. The witnesses have completed the chain of evidence against the accused since handing over the draft to the complainant till it was forged and fabricated.
In view of above discussion, relying upon the deposition of PW3 complainant, prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubts that one N.K. Gupta had to receive back his loan amount from N.K. Jain and for this purpose, N.K. Jain called complainant and N.K. Gupta in Hyatt Regency Hotel. When they reached, accused Vijay Khanna was waiting for N.K. Jain and met them. Accused Vijay Khanna and N.K. Jain went out and after 10 minutes, they came again in the lobby and thereafter accused Vijay Khanna gave an envelope to N.K. Jain and left. N.K. Jain opened the envelope. There were more than one draft in the envelope. He took one draft and handed over the same to N.K. Gupta, which was later on found forged. N.K. Jain has already been expired, which shows that N.K. Jain and Vijay Khanna entered into a criminal conspiracy to SC No. 114/1/10 32 commit an illegal act or to do an act by illegal means because Vijay Khanna was not known to complainant/N.K. Gupta, hence, from the circumstances, it is clear that N.K. Jain and Vijay Khanna had entered into a criminal conspiracy to forge international draft to use the same as genuine and handed over the same to complainant/N.K. Gupta. So, prosecution has been able to prove offence U/s. 120B of IPC against accused Vijay Khanna beyond reasonable doubts, for which he is held guilty and convicted for the same.
In view of above discussion, prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubts that the forged and fabricated draft was handed over by accused Vijay Khanna to N.K. Jain, who further handed over the same to N.K. Gupta and thereafter it was found forged. N.K. Gupta deposited some money in respect of the forged draft, but later on, he did not pay the remaining amount to the bank. Now, the question is whether offence U/s. 420 of IPC is proved or not.
Learned defence counsel has contended that in the complaint i.e. statement of Sh. Virender Kumar Goyal recorded in the crime branch, he has stated that his client N.K. Gupta was cheated for a sum of Rs. 3,27,000/, which he had given at different time to accused Vijay Khanna and N.K. Jain against the bank draft, but this part of his earlier statement recorded by the crime branch Ex. PW3/2 is not appearing in the deposition of complainant examined as PW2 before the Court. So, there was no dishonest inducement either to the complainant or to his client N.K. Gupta to deliver any property or any part of the valuable security against the draft and simply it has been stated by the complainant PW2 that draft was given by Vijay Khanna to N.K. Jain, who further handed over the same to the complainant party, which was found forged later on. PW2 has not deposed before SC No. 114/1/10 33 the Court that accused persons had cheated him and his client N.K. Gupta for a sum of Rs. 3,27,000/, which were given by him from time to time to accused Vijay Khanna and N.K. Jain against the draft. So, the contention of learned defence counsel is forceful. Accordingly, prosecution has not been able to prove one of the ingredient dishonest inducement to deliver any property or valuable security, so, offence U/s. 420 of IPC is not proved in any manner. Accordingly, accused Vijay Khanna is acquitted for the same.
In view of above discussion, from the statements of PW2 and other witnesses , it has been proved beyond reasonable doubts that a forged and fabricated draft of Chemical Bank, Los Angeles, California, which was not existing, was given to the complainant party in discharge of loan amount as per statement of PW2 and from the deposition of PW8, prosecution has also been able to prove beyond reasonable doubts that signatures appearing at point Q3 on Ex. PW2/6 i.e. draft in question, were written by accused Vijay Khanna. So, it is proved beyond reasonable doubts that accused Vijay Khanna forged a bank draft, which was a valuable security. Accordingly, prosecution has been able to prove offence U/s. 467 of IPC against accused Vijay Khanna, for which, he is held guilty and convicted for the same.
In view of above discussion, as offence U/s. 420 of IPC has not been proved against accused Vijay Khanna, accordingly, offence U/s. 468 of IPC i.e. forgery for the purpose of cheating is also not proved against him, for which, he is acquitted.
In view of above discussion, it has been proved beyond reasonable SC No. 114/1/10 34 doubts that a forged draft was used as genuine by Vijay Khanna, which was handed over to N.K. Jain, who further handed over the same to complainant party in discharge of his loan. It was assured to be genuine one and even after knowing the fact that draft was forged and no such branch of Chemical Bank was existing in Los Angeles, California, N.K. Jain told that there was some credit system, so, if money was not deposited in time, then draft could not be encashed and further assured to deliver a fresh draft or to return the money. So, accused Vijay Khanna through N.K. Jain used the draft in question Ex. PW2/6 as genuine and believing the same, it was deposited in Citi bank, but was found forged and fabricated. hence, offence U/s. 471 of IPC is also proved against the accused beyond reasonable doubts, for which, he is held guilty and convicted for the same.
In view of above discussion, from the telex message received from Chemical Bank sent to Citi Bank Ex. PW2/4, it is clear that the draft in question Ex. PW2/6 was forged and fabricated as there was no such branch of Chemical Bank, Los Angeles, California and the draft falls within the ambit of definition of Bank notes, which was counterfeited by accused Vijay Khanna, who, from his possession, had delivered the same to N.K. Jain, who further delivered the same to the complainant party and was deposited in the Citi Bank. Not only this, signatures of the purportedly authorized person were also fabricated by accused Vijay Khanna on the same. So, prosecution has been able to prove offence U/s. 489A of IPC, for which, accused Vijay Khanna is held guilty and convicted for the same.
In view of above discussion, as this forged and counterfeited bank note i.e. draft Ex. PW2/6 was made by accused V.K. Khanna after signing the same and SC No. 114/1/10 35 used the same as genuine i.e. said bank note by handing over the same to N.K. Jain, who further handed over the same to complainant in discharge of his loan, so, prosecution has also been able to prove beyond reasonable doubts offence U/s. 489B of IPC, for which, accused is held guilty and convicted for the same.
Announced in Open Court on
dated 3rd of December, 2011 (Virender Kumar Goyal)
Additional Sessions Judge
Fast Track Court
Rohini : Delhi
SC No. 114/1/10 36