Delhi District Court
State vs . Satish on 27 July, 2018
IN THE COURT OF MS. DEEPTI DEVESH: MM04, SHAHDARA KKD,
DELHI
State Vs. Satish
FIR No.: 409/03
P.S.: Welcome
U/Sec.: 468 IPC
JUDGMENT :
Srl. No. of the case & Date of 76655/16 dt. 19.08.2006
institution
Date of commission of offence 05.06.2003
Name of the complainant Sh. S.C. Modi
Name of the accused 1.Satish
S/o. Sh. Rattan Lal Jain R/o. 2011,
Gali No.6, Rajgarh Extension, Gandhi
Nagar, Delhi.
2.Sandeep Sharma
S/o. Sh. Prakash Chand Sharma
(proceedings abated)
Nature of offence complained of U/S. 468 IPC
Plea of the accused person Accused pleaded not guilty
Date of reserving order 17.05.2018
Final Order Convicted
Date of order 27.07.2018
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE CASE:
1.In the present case, accused is facing trial for offence punishable under Section 468 IPC on the allegations that on 05.06.2003 between 10.00 a.m. to 4.00 p.m. at Corporation Bank, Kabir FIR NO. 409/03 State Vs. Satish Page No.1 of 10 Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi falling within the jurisdiction of PS Welcome, accused had made a fake bank draft bearing No. 980964 drawn on Punjab National Bank.
2. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed on 19.08.2006 and cognizance was taken on same day. Copy of charge sheet was supplied to accused on 07.05.2007 and charge for offence punishable U/s. 468 IPC was framed on 31.10.2011 against accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. To prove its case, prosecution has examined thirteen witnesses.
4. PW1, PW2, PW7, PW8, PW9, PW10 and PW13 are formal witnesses. PW1 has proved the account opening form of bank account of accused at Corporation Bank, Kabir Nagar, Delhi Ex. PW1/A (OSR) and Ex. PW1/B (OSR). PW2 has proved the present FIR Ex. PW2/A (OSR) and endorsement on rukka Ex. PW2/B. PW7 is complainant whose complaint is formal in nature being manager of PNB, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, where the alleged fake demand draft was presented by Corporation Bank and his complaint is Ex. PW7/A. PW8 had handed over the allegedly fake demand draft Ex. P1 to IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW8/A. PW9 has deposed that on 22.10.2005, he seized Ex. P1 vide Ex. PW8/A and prepared charge sheet and filed the same before court. PW10 has deposed that he prepared rukka Ex. PW10/A. PW13 has deposed that he had witnessed handing over of Ex. P1 to IO on 22.10.2005 vide Ex. PW8/A. FIR NO. 409/03 State Vs. Satish Page No.2 of 10
5. PW4 and PW5 are public witnesses who have not supported the case of the prosecution. Despite crossexamination by Ld. APP for the State, the said witnesses have not made any incriminating statement against present accused.
6. PW6 is public witness who has supported the case of the prosecution and has deposed about the trail of Ex. P1 till it reached one Ashok Kumar Jain.
7. PW11 is HC Madan Pal who deposed that he has joined investigation on 28.06.2005 and witnessed arrest of present accused vide Ex. PW11/A, personal search of accused vide Ex.PW11/B and also accompanied accused on his PC remand to Agra where at his instance, coaccused Sandeep was arrested on 29.06.2005. He also proved disclsoure statement of present accused Ex. PW11/C. Thereafter, he was crossexamined and discharged on 13.09.2017.
8. PW12 is Inspector Arvind Sagar Negi who has deposed that he carried out further investigation from 23.04.2005, arrested present accused and coaccused. He further deposed that he obtained specimen signatures of both accused Ex. PW12/D and Ex. PW12/E which was sent to FSL. Thereafter, he was crossexamined and discharged on 07.10.2017.
9. PW14 is ASI Pradeep who deposed that he joined investigation on 28.06.2003 and accompanied present accused on his PC remand, where at his instance, coaccused Sandeep was arrested at Agra. Thereafter, she was crossexamined and discharged on FIR NO. 409/03 State Vs. Satish Page No.3 of 10 28.02.2018.
10. One court witness Sh. S.C. Gupta was examined who proved his expert opinion Ex. CW1/A. Thereafter, he was cross examined and discharged on 04.06.2018.
11. No other PW was examined by prosecution and PE was closed.
12. Statement of accused was recorded U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. on 20.04.2018 wherein he denied the case of the prosecution and pleaded innocence. He further submitted that he does not want to lead defence evidence.
13. Final arguments were advanced at length by Ld. APP for the State and counsel for accused.
14. I have considered the submissions and perused the record carefully.
15. On examination of the evidence adduced by the prosecution and other material available on record, the following reasons come to light:
15.1 The material evidence available against accused is comparison of his specimen signature and handwriting with signatures and handwriting present on the alleged fake bank draft. The FSL report in this regard is positive wherein it is opined that the specimen handwriting of accused Satish is matching with the handwriting on bank draft at point Q2. Q2 is the alleged signatures of payee of the bank draft i.e. one Rakesh Kumar and specimen handwriting of accused Satish FIR NO. 409/03 State Vs. Satish Page No.4 of 10 from S8 to S16 i.e. 'Rakesh Kumar' is found to be matching with Q2.
One of the experts who have given this opinion was examined as Court witness No.1. He has given sufficient background of his expertise in this field by deposing about his educational qualifications and work experience. He has further deposed that another expert Sh. Narender Kumar had also reached at the same conclusion as himself after independently comparing Q2 with S8 to S16. The second expert was not examined as one witness is sufficient to prove same fact. Nothing in the crossexamination of court witness No.1 on behalf of accused has come which discredits his expertise in this field or the opinion given by him in this case. He has duly proved his opinion vide report dated 07.04.2006 as Ex. CW1/A. Thus, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused Satish had forged signatures of one Rakesh Kumar at point Q2 on the bank draft Ex. P1, to attempt encashement into his bank account. Nothing has been brought to the contrary by accused Satish to disprove that he had not signed at Q2 on Ex. P1. No expert witness has been examined on behalf of accused with any contrary report and in fact accused has chosen not to lead any defence evidence, which further cements Ex. CW1/A against accused. The only argument propounded on behalf of accused was that the IO had not taken specimen signature and handwriting of accused in accordance with law i.e. the same were taken without permission of any Magistrate. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has ruled in Rekha Sharma vs. CBI 2015 (218) DLT 1 that FIR NO. 409/03 State Vs. Satish Page No.5 of 10 evidence collection is the power of IO as per Section 2(h) Cr.P.C. and IO is entitled to take different steps for the same. It is well established that investigation of each offence is peculiar to the facts of that offence and investigation officer is expected to think out of the box to ensure collection of evidence within the ambit of law, which is simultaneously, sufficient to secure a conviction. Therefore, it is clear that without any specific provision of law, there was no bar upon IO to not take specimen signature and handwriting of accused without permission of a Magistrate. In Selvi vs. State of Karnataka 2010(7) SCC 263, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the opinion given on specimen signature and handwriting is not rendered inadmissible merely on the ground that the said specimen signature and handwriting was obtained without following the prescribed procedure. Thus, it is well settled that procedural irregularity in obtaining specimen signatures and handwriting does not render the subsequent opinion also inadmissible.
Furthermore, in the instant case, PW12, who has obtained the specimen handwriting and signatures vide Ex. PW12/D (colly) and Ex. PW12/E (colly), has deposed that he was marked investigation on 23.04.2005 and on 26.07.2005 he was transferred and therefore, the present file was marked to some other official for further investigation. Hence, the specimen signature and handwriting of accused Satish had been obtained by PW12 in between 23.04.2005 and 26.07.2005. Thus, on the date of obtaining of specimen handwriting and signatures, there was no provision in Cr.P.C. regarding taking permission from FIR NO. 409/03 State Vs. Satish Page No.6 of 10 Magistrate for specimen handwriting and signatures as Section 311A Cr.P.C. was made effective from 23.06.2006. Therefore, it is clear that IO did not take permission from any Magistrate because there was no provision in existence on date of obtaining of specimen handwriting and signatures, and thus, IO was not lacking in any procedural manner. It is observed earlier also that merely because a provision does not exist for something, does not mean that there is a bar on obtaining that thing by using and devising unique methods of investigation. It has been recently held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Sukhram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh in Crl. Appeal No. 224/2012 dated 25.07.2016 that Section 311A Cr.P.C. is prospective in nature and not retrospective. Therefore, in the present case since specimen signature and handwriting were obtained prior to enforcement of Section 311A Cr.P.C., there is no requirement for specific permission of Magistrate to render Ex. PW12/D (colly) and Ex. PW1/A admissible in evidence. Thus, the argument that specimen signature and handwriting of accused were not obtained by IO in accordance with law and therefore, not admissible in evidence is not sustainable.
15.2 PW 6 is public witness who has established the handing over of alleged fake bank draft Ex. P1 from one person to another till the same was handed over to one Ashok Kumar Jain, at which point it was found to be a fake bank draft. Thus, PW6 has established the chain of events linking Ex. P1 to Ashok Kumar Jain, for whom accused Satish held bank account i.e. in the name of Ashok Kumar Co., in which FIR NO. 409/03 State Vs. Satish Page No.7 of 10 Ex. P1 was attempted to be deposited. Other public witnesses i.e. PW4 and PW5 have not supported the case of the prosecution, but both the said PWs are also witnesses to the trail of Ex. P1 from one person to another till it reached one Ashok Kumar Jain. It is well settled that one witness alone is sufficient to prove a fact, provided his testimony is consistent and cogent. Therefore, even though PW4 and PW5 may not have supported the case of the prosecution, but the same is not fatal to the case of the prosecution as PW6 has deposed about the same facts cogently and therefore, the trail of Ex. P1 has been established. Further, PW6 has not been crossexamined by accused despite opportunity and therefore, the testimony of PW6 stands duly proved. 15.3 PW1 is a material witness in the present case as he has proved the bank account opening form of account No.75740 at Corporation Bank, Kabir Nagar, Ex. PW1/A (OSR). The said document shows that the said account is in the name of accused Satish Kumar Jain bearing his photo and he was identified by one Ashok Kumar Jain having account No. 75580. PW1 also proved account opening form of account No. 75580 Ex. PW1/B (OSR), belonging to one Ashok Kumar Jain, who had identified accused Satish Kumar Jain in Ex. PW1/A (OSR) (Account No. of Ex. PW1/B (OSR) has been inadvertently written as 75780 in evidence sheet dated 10.04.2013, when Ex. PW1B (OSR) shows that correct account No. to be 75580). Therefore, PW1 has established that Ex. P1 was attempted to be deposited in account of accused Satish, for which statement of account has also been filed of FIR NO. 409/03 State Vs. Satish Page No.8 of 10 accused Satish from 01.06.2003 to 10.06.2003 showing attempt of encashment of Ex. P1 on 06.06.2003. It has been argued that police has not investigated the fact as to who deposited Ex. P1 in accused Satish's bank account. However, this fact is irrelevant to establish the alleged offence against accused as deposition of Ex. P1 in his bank account raises the presumption that it was with his knowledge and consent of accused Satish. This presumption changes into a fact when seen in light of Ex. CW1/A, which establishes that accused Satish forged signature of one Rakesh Kumar on Ex. P1, before it was deposited in this bank account. If accused was not aware that the said bank draft was being deposited in his bank account, then, accused would not have forged signatures of Rakesh Kumar on Ex. P1 for fake endorsement. The existence of forged signature on Ex. P1 linked Ex. P1 conclusively to accused Satish which is sufficient to establish beyond reasonable doubt that Ex. P1 was deposited in his bank account with his knowledge or consent.
15.4 Despite extensive crossexamination of all material witnesses, no material contradiction or discrepancy has come in deposition of any prosecution witness. The alleged offence in the present case has been established by the prosecution mostly by way of documentary evidence. PW7 has duly proved his complaint Ex. PW7/A, seizure memo of Ex. P1 has been duly proved by PW8 as Ex. PW8/A, bank account record of accused has been duly proved by PW1 vide Ex. PW1/A (OSR), PW6 has proved the identity of Ex. P1. PW12 has duly FIR NO. 409/03 State Vs. Satish Page No.9 of 10 established specimen signature and handwriting of accused vide Ex. PW12/D (colly) and court witness No.1 has proved his opinion vide Ex. CW1/A. All the abovesaid witnesses have withstood crossexamination, and therefore, inspire confidence of the court to rely upon their respective testimonies. Cumulatively, all the abovesaid proved documents, when seen together are sufficient to establish the alleged offence punishable under Section 468 IPC.
16. Thus, as a cumulative effect of all the points discussed above, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against accused Satish and accordingly he is convicted for offence punishable under Section 468 IPC.
Copy of this judgment be given free of cost to accused.
(Typed directly upon dictation on court computer and announced in the open Court on 27.07.2018) (Deepti Devesh) Metropolitan Magistrate04 (SHD) Karkardooma Court, Delhi Digitally signed by DEEPTI DEVESH DEEPTI Location:
Shahdara District, DEVESH Karkardooma
Courts, Delhi
Date: 2018.07.27
15:29:37 +0530
FIR NO. 409/03 State Vs. Satish Page No.10 of 10