Delhi District Court
State vs . Harish Kumar Magan on 10 October, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. AKASH JAIN, METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE06, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
State vs. Harish Kumar Magan
FIR No : 338/90
U/s : 420/468/471 IPC
PS : Parliament Street
JUDGMENT
a) Sl. No. of the case : 69/02
b) Unique Case ID No. : 02403R0000791993
c) The date of commission of the
offence : On or before 19.10.1988
d) Name of the complainant : Sh. S.V. Prabhu, then AGM UCO Bank
e) Name, parentage & address
of accused : Harish Kumar Magan S/o late Sh.
Jaikishan Lal, R/o 101A, Pocket 4, Mayur
Vihar, PhaseI, New Delhi.
f) Offences complained of : 420/468/471 IPC
g) The plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
h) Final Judgment : Acquitted
i) Date of institution of case : 24.06.1993
j) Date of final arguments : 07.10.2014
k) Date of Judgment : 10.10.2014
BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR THE DECISION:
1. In the present case chargesheet was filed by the State under Sections 420/468/471 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter mentioned as 'IPC') against the accused namely Harish Kumar Magan on 24.06.1993. The case of prosecution is that on or before 19.10.1988, accused being the proprietor of M/s The Cotton Workshop forged a bank guarantee no.189/88 dated CC No.69/02 FIR No.338/90 Page no. 1 of 18 19.10.1988 and produced the same to M/s Apparel Exports Promotion Council (AEPC) in order to obtain a duplicate special customs invoice (visa) from AEPC and thereby cheated AEPC, UCO Bank and M/s Baba Exports. Further, it is the case of prosecution that on or before aforementioned date, accused while producing the alleged forged bank guarantee no.189/88 to AEPC, knew fully well and had reasons to believe that the same was forged and thereby committed offences punishable u/s 420/468/471 IPC.
2. On the basis of aforesaid chargesheet, Ld. Predecessor Court took cognizance of the offences under section 420/468/471 of IPC against the accused. Accused had appeared before the court and documents were supplied to him in compliance of section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter mentioned as 'Cr.P.C.'). Arguments on charge were heard and vide separate order dated 04.03.1998, Ld. Predecessor Court ordered for framing of charge under section 420/471 of IPC against the accused. Charge accordingly framed to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for prosecution evidence.
3. In support of its case, prosecution examined as many as fifteen witnesses. PW1 is W/SI Manju Dubey, who deposed that on 27.09.1990, she was working as duty officer at police station Parliament Street. She proved registration of FIR No.338/90 as Ex.PW1/A. She further stated that after registration of FIR, she handed over the copy of FIR and rukka to Ct.
CC No.69/02 FIR No.338/90 Page no. 2 of 18 Amarnath.
4. PW2 is Shashidharan Pillai, who deposed that he had been working as Export Document Assistant in M/s Baba Export House since 1979 till 1996. He stated that their company was allotted a quota of 25018 sq. yards. of Group II for USA by AEPC which is a statutory body of Ministry of Commerce. PW2 stated that accused i.e. Proprietor of M/s The Cotton Workshop requested for utilizing the quota for their company i.e. M/s Baba Export House by sending 5700 pieces of ladies scarves to USA on the above said quota. PW2 further stated that the accused had come directly to their office and they agreed to give quota to accused. The whole document was to be in the name of M/s Baba Export House but the supply would be of M/s Cotton Workshop. PW2 further stated that all the documents were prepared in the name of M/s Baba Export House and the 5700 ladies scarves were sent to USA by M/s Cotton Workshop in the month of September 1988. Original documents i.e. visa and invoice were handed over to accused. Copy of same is Mark A and Mark B respectively. PW2 further stated that in the month of October 1988, accused came to their office and told him that the documents which were sent to USA for releasing consignment had been misplaced on transit. He requested to issue duplicate visa for sending the same to USA. For issuing duplicate visa, party had to give guarantee in the shape of demand draft/ bank guarantee of 50% of the cost of consignment and it was 65,500 i.e. 50% of the cost of consignment in question. PW2 deposed that accused requested to give guarantee but their company refused CC No.69/02 FIR No.338/90 Page no. 3 of 18 at first instance. Subsequently, accused agreed to give the bank guarantee from his bank i.e. UCO bank Parliament Street. PW2 stated that some time in October 1988, accused brought bank guarantee to him. Copy of the same is Mark C and asked him to sign on behalf of M/s Baba Export House as he was the authorized signatory. Believing the same as genuine documents, PW2 put his signatures at point X. The original guarantee in question is Ex. PW2/A. Accused took the same back as he told PW2 that he will deposit the same in the bank. Thereafter, accused deposited the bank guarantee to AEPC and got the consignment released on the basis of same. PW2 stated that in January 1990, they received a show cause notice from AEPC for submitting a forged bank guarantee. PW2 further deposed that on the basis of the bank guarantee Ex. PW2/A he had requested on behalf of his firm M/s Baba Export House to the Director, AEPC for requesting the Washington Embassy for releasing the consignment of the accused which was sent through their firm and the letter in this regard is Ex. PW2/B which he signed on behalf of Baba Export House at point A on 14.10.1988. One covering letter of bank guarantee of Rs.65,550/ was also signed by him and the same is Ex. PW2/C and one undertaking for issuance of Visa Waiver against the lost visa to the USA addressed to the Director AEPC was also prepared and same is Ex. PW2/D which he signed on behalf of their firm at point A. The show cause notice issued by AEPC dated 12.01.1990 and the show cause notice dated 20.06.1990 is Ex. PW6/F5 and F7 respectively. The reply to the notice on behalf of M/s Baba Export House was Ex. PW6/F6. The documents i.e. invoice credit advice, debit advice, debit note, payment voucher and cheque payment voucher dated 13.07.1988 and 23.12.1988 were CC No.69/02 FIR No.338/90 Page no. 4 of 18 seized by police in the presence of PW2 vide memo Ex. PW6/G and all the documents are Ex. PW6/B to PW6/F17. PW2 further proved telex copy Ex. PW6/H3 and Ex. PW6/H4 which was seized by the police and which was sent by AEPC to Washington for Visa Waiver on undertaking given to AEPC. The same is Ex. PW6/H2. Special invoice issued by AEPC is Ex. PW6/H5 and packing list mentioning packet details about the consignment alongwith the invoice is Ex. PW6/H6. The insurance cover note and instruction certificate and export certificate received at the office of Baba Export House is Ex. PW6/H8 to PW6/H9 and Mark PX. PW2 further deposed that accused was arrested in his presence and his personal search was also conducted in his presence vide memo Ex. PW6/L.
5. PW3 is P.C. Jain, Retd. Sr. Manager UCO Bank. He deposed that in the year 1988/89 while he was working as Sr. Manager in UCO Bank, Parliament Street in foreign exchange branch, he received the claim from AEPC purported to be issued by their bank. The bank guarantee which was received as Ex. PW2/A had never been issued by their bank and signatures encircled at portion Q1 to Q4 on two pages were not of any of the officers of their bank nor it bore the stamp of their bank. PW3 deposed that they were maintaining one current account of M/s Cotton Workshop in their bank since 01.01.1988. It was a proprietorship concern of one Harish Kumar. He was the only authorized signatory of the firm in their bank. One transferable LC no.IL3975/88 dated 25.05.1988 for Rs.7,10,000/ favouring M/s Cotton Workshop B32, Sector 9, Noida, U.P. was received in their bank on 27.05.1988 and the LC was received through telex through SBI LC CC No.69/02 FIR No.338/90 Page no. 5 of 18 which is Ex. PW3/A. On written request of proprietor of M/s Cotton Workshop i.e. Mr. Harish Kumar which is Ex. PW3/B, Rs.2,60,000/ was transferred to M/s Baba Export House, C106/5, Naraina Industrial Area, PhaseI, New Delhi and noting in this regard had been made on the back of Ex. PW3/A at encircled portion A on 06.07.1988. PW3 further deposed that one notice u/s 91 Cr.P.C. was received from IO of this case sometime in the year 1991 and on 29.01.1991 the original account opening form of A/c no.4103, one original paper dated 23.11.1987, 01.01.1988, letter dated 27.05.1988, certified copy/ photocopy of statement of account of account no.4103, statements of account in original of the same account and one letter of their bank dated 25.01.1991 and 29.01.1999 were seized by the IO vide memo Ex. PW3/K. All the abovesaid documents are Ex. PW3/C (colly) to Ex. PW3/J. PW3 further stated that bank guarantee in question Ex. PW2/A do not bear signatures of any of the officers of bank. During cross examination, PW3 stated that bank guarantee in question was never given to their bank by Harish Kumar Magan.
6. PW4 is Sunil Gorewala, Dy. Chief Officer of Accounts & Administration, UCO Bank, Parliament Street. He deposed that on 30.07.1991, he was working as Senior Manager, UCO Bank, Parliament Street and on the same day he had handed over three cheques of the account holder of M/s Cotton Workshop Mr. Harish Kumar to the police which are Ex. PW4/A to C. These were seized by the police vide memo Ex. PW4/D.
7. PW5 is V.K. Khanna, Sr. Scientific Officer, CFSL, who deposed that CC No.69/02 FIR No.338/90 Page no. 6 of 18 on 31.05.1991, 28.06.1991 and on 28.10.1991 he had given his opinion qua certain documents on the request of SHO PS Parliament Street and reports are Ex. PW5/A to C respectively.
8. PW6 is HC Avtar Singh, who deposed that on 07.03.1991, the then IO SI Maluk Singh seized many documents in his presence and in the presence of Rajan Bhasin and other officials. The original L.C. is Ex. PW6/A (colly), original invoice is Ex. PW6/B, one paper (invoice) is Ex. PW6/C, one carbon copy of credit advice is Ex PW6/D, another debit advice dated 03.03.1989 is Ex. PW6/E. Debit advice dated 03.03.1989 of Rs.3523/, cheque payment voucher of Baba Export House dated 05.10.1988, original cheque payment voucher dated 31.03.1989 of same firm, debit note dated 31.03.1989, one letter dated 12.01.1990 signed by one D.K. Nair running into two pages, one letter of Baba Export House carbon copy/ office copy running into five pages addressed to Director AEPC, one carbon copy of a letter of AEPC addressed to Barun Khanna signed by Rajan Bhasin running into three pages, one letter of AEPC addressed to Baba Export House, letter of Canara Bank addressed to Baba Export House running into two pages, one letter of D&S International, one invoice of Baba Export, credit voucher dated 12.07.1989, debit advice dated 12.11.1988 of Canara Bank, one letter dated 23.12.1988 of M/s B&S International, cheque payment voucher dated 13.07.1988 of Baba Export and voucher (similar) dated 23.12.1988 are Ex. PW6/F1 to F17. The same were seized in presence of PW6 vide seizure memo Ex. PW6/G. On 19.03.1991, IO seized one copy of airway bill, one copy of undertaking dated 19.10.1988, one telex copy, another telex copy CC No.69/02 FIR No.338/90 Page no. 7 of 18 dated 27.10.1988, carbon copy of special customs invoice, carbon copy of invoice running into two pages, one copy of letter of D.S. International and one letter of cover addressed to M/s Baba Export House are Ex. PW6/H1 to H8, one photocopy of letter dated 11.06.1988 of Ram Pvt. Ltd. Mark PX, one letter dated 29.09.1988, one carbon copy of invoice are Ex. PW6/H9 &
10. All these documents were seized through seizure memo Ex. PW6/J. On 19.03.1991, IO obtained the specimen writing/ signatures of accused in his presence on six white sheets and are now Ex. PW6/K1 to K6. Accused was arrested on 19.03.1991. His specimen handwriting/ signatures were obtained by the IO in the court and personal search of accused was conducted in his presence as Ex. PW6/L. On 19.06.1991, 07.08.1991 and 24.04.1991, PW6 had gone to the office of FSL alongwith documents etc. and deposited the same there and till the documents remained in his possession, they were not tampered with.
9. PW7 is R.S. Juneja, who deposed that in the year 1991, when he was posted as Manager (Services) Overseas Branch of SBI, Barakhamba Road, one CC No.3975 dated 27.05.1988 was received from SBI, New York which was forwarded to the beneficiary, The Cotton Workshop. In the year 1991 on police inquiry the copy of the LC alongwith the forwarding letter were handed over to the police under the cover of his letter which is Ex. PW7/A and the photocopies are Mark A and B. The original LC was handed over to the beneficiary vide letter referred above from the office of PW7.
10. PW8 is J.D. Giri, who deposed that he was working as Regional CC No.69/02 FIR No.338/90 Page no. 8 of 18 Director at AEPC Jamrudpur, Office between 198890. This council is sponsored by Ministry of Textile, Govt. of India. Earlier it was sponsored by the Ministry of Textile, Govt. of India. PW8 deposed that council regulates export quota to various countries under bilateral agreement for USA. The council allots quota and certifies the documents based on which exporters can make shipments. PW8 further deposed that Baba Export House applied for endorsement of shipping bill for export of 5700 pieces of ladies scarves to USA. The documents were certified by AEPC on 27.09.1988. On 14.10.1988 Baba Export House reported that they had lost transit visa no.81N513846 which was issued by AEPC vide document Mark A. PW8 further deposed that in case of lost visa AEPC does not issue duplicate visa, however, they recommended the case of Baba Export House to office of Textile Commissioner, Mumbai for issuance of visa waiver which was later on allowed subject to furnishing of bank guarantee to the extent of 50% of FOB value. PW8 further deposed that Baba Export House consequently submitted bank guarantee Ex. PW2/A at their office. Based on this the case was recommended to the office of Textile Commissioner for forwarding request to Indian Embassy in US for visa waiver. After expiry of bank guarantee for a period of one year AEPC launched the claim against the said bank guarantee from Baba Export House since they did not submit any documentary evidence to the effect that original visa had not been issued. They subsequently lodged the claim with UCO bank, Parliament Street and they reverted to the same by stating that the bank guarantee in question had not been issued by them. PW8 further deposed that thereafter they wrote a letter/ complaint to SHO Parliament Street which is Ex.
CC No.69/02 FIR No.338/90 Page no. 9 of 18 PW8/A.
11. PW9 is Rajan Bhasin, who is Managing Partner of M/s Baba Export House. He deposed that on 22.02.1988 they were allotted 25018 sq. yards of group quota which was to be used for export of various garments including ladies scarves. In due course Mr. Harish Magan, Proprietor of M/s Cotton Workshop approached them for export of 5700 pieces of ladies scarves as he had no quota for the same. PW9 further deposed that Mr. Harish Magan transferred letter of credit for Rs.2,60,000/ in favour of M/s Baba Export House for the export of ladies scarves. He further deposed that Mr. Harish Kumar Magan packed 5700 pieces of ladies scarves in cartons alongwith his local sale invoice raised in the name of Baba Export House alongwith inspection certificate from Ram Private Limited. He further handed over the said consignment to Baba Export House for export. PW9 further deposed that after exporting the said consignment the balance amount was paid to M/s Cotton Workshop. PW9 further deposed that in October 1988 accused again approached them with the request that original customs invoice (visa) had been lost in transit and the buyers i.e. Mr. Kapoor and Kapoor of New York required a duplicate visa to be issued by AEPC. PW9 further deposed that they informed accused that loosing the original invoice (visa) was his fault so he should arrange bank guarantee of the relevant amount from his own bankers to which accused agreed. He got the stamp papers, got a bank guarantee typed and brought the same to their office for signatures. One of their employee Mr. Shashidharan Pillai signed the said bank guarantee and handed over the same to Mr. Harish Kumar Magan for counter signatures of CC No.69/02 FIR No.338/90 Page no. 10 of 18 his banker i.e. UCO bank, Parliament Street. It is further deposed that Mr. Harish Magan forged the signatures of bank official, bank seal and stamp and filed the said bank guarantee to AEPC. It is further deposed by PW9 that on 12.01.1990, he was informed by AEPC that the bank guarantee in question was forged. Consequently, they were contacted by the IO SI Malook Singh who carried out the investigation in this case. PW9 also filed a written statement dated 11.12.1990 giving full details and particulars of the case alongwith relevant documents.
12. PW10 is SI Pyare Lal, who deposed that on 19.03.1991, he was posted at police station Parliament Street. He further deposed that he joined the investigation of the present case with Ct. Avtar Singh with IO SI Maluk Singh. Specimen signatures and handwriting of accused were taken in his presence which are Ex. PW6/K1 to K6.
13. PW11 is P.S. Prabhu, who deposed that in the year 198992 he was posted as Senior Manager in Canara Bank, Tagore Garden, New Delhi. He further deposed that he had handed over some documents to the police but he did not remember the date, month and year and particulars of said documents. Thereafter, seizure memo Ex. PW11/A was shown to him by Ld. APP for State and he identified the signatures of the same at point A. The witness identified his signatures on following documents i.e. letter dated 14.02.1991, which is Ex. PW11/B. Copies of ledger sheets attested by PW11 are Ex. PW11/D to PW11/S. CC No.69/02 FIR No.338/90 Page no. 11 of 18
14. PW12 is Jugal Kishore, who deposed that he had worked at AEPC from 1982 to 1995. He had given some documents (photocopies) to police. Some of the documents were photocopies and some were original. The said documents were seized vide memo Ex. PW12/A to PW12/D.
15. PW13 is S.V. Prabhu, who deposed that in the year 1990, he was working at UCO Bank, Parliament Street Branch as officiating Asstt. General Manager, when Mr. P.C. Jain, Sr. Manager, Foreign Exchange Deptt., UCO Bank had brought to his notice about the claim of AEPC and informed him that this guarantee being not issued by their bank. As the guarantee number did not tally with their records, he asked Mr. Jain to inform AEPC that the guarantee was not issued by them and they cannot pay their claims. PW13 had lodged complaint with police in this regard.
16. PW14 is S.N. Mishra, who did not support of the case of prosecution. He stated that he was transferred to UCO Bank, Parliament Street Branch in September/ October 1990 and did not remember about the facts of this case. He though identified his signatures on Ex. PW3/K at point B.
17. PW15 is I.K. Sethi, who deposed that he had worked at M/s Baba Export House from 1985 to 1995 as Export Executive. He further deposed that accused came to them regarding misplacing certain documents and assured to arrange bank guarantee from his bank. Later on their office received one notice from AEPC regarding production of a fake bank guarantee. He further deposed that he does know as to who had made CC No.69/02 FIR No.338/90 Page no. 12 of 18 complaint and Mr. Shashidharan Pillai was dealing person with the accused on behalf of M/s Baba Export House.
18. Next witness is Inspector Maluk Singh. Due to typographical error his serial number was written as PW15 instead of PW16. He carried out investigation of the present case. He deposed regarding receipt of complaint on which he made endorsement as Ex. PW15/A. He further deposed on the lines of testimonies of PW3, PW8, PW9 and PW11 regarding seizure of various documents as already exhibited in their respective testimonies. He further deposed on the lines of testimony of PW6 HC Avtar Singh regarding seizure of various documents already Ex. PW6/A to PW6/L. He correctly identified the accused in the court and stated that challan of the present case was prepared by him.
19. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed by this court on 04.04.2006 and the matter was fixed for recording of statement of accused. Statement of the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. r/w section 281 Cr.P.C. was duly recorded on 25.07.2006. The accused disavowed all the allegations made against him and stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The accused did not wish to lead defence evidence. Thereafter, defence evidence was closed and matter proceeded for final arguments.
20. Final arguments were heard on behalf of Ld. APP for state and the CC No.69/02 FIR No.338/90 Page no. 13 of 18 accused. After perusal of the record this court is of the view that in order to bring home guilt of the accused for the offences in question, the prosecution was required to prove following facts:
i) That bank guarantee in question Ex.PW2/A is forged/ fake.
ii) That accused used the said bank guarantee as genuine.
iii) That accused used the bank guarantee in question fraudulently or dishonestly, knowing or having reasons to believe that it was forged.
iv) That the accused made false representation to AEPC with dishonest intention to deceive them in accepting forged bank guarantee in question.
21. With respect to point (i), it may be noted at the outset that factum of bank guarantee in question being forged is not disputed by the accused during entire trial as is also clear from the statement of accused recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. and suggestions made to material prosecution witnesses by Ld. Counsel for accused during their crossexamination. Moreover, PW3 then Senior Manager in UCO Bank, Parliament Street branch had categorically deposed in his testimony that the bank guarantee in question Ex. PW2/A had never been issued by their bank and the same neither bears stamp of their bank nor bears signatures of any of their officials. It is thus proved that the bank guarantee in question Ex. PW2/A is a forged document.
22. All the other remaining points (ii) to (iv) are discussed together as the same are interrelated to each other. While relying upon the testimonies of PW2, PW9 and PW16 it has been argued by Ld. APP for State that CC No.69/02 FIR No.338/90 Page no. 14 of 18 accused got the stamp papers, bank guarantee in question typed and then brought the said bank guarantee to the office of M/s Baba Export House to get it signed from the concerned officials on the pretext of getting it counter signed from the bankers of the accused i.e. UCO bank, Parliament Street Branch. It has been argued that after deceiving the officials of M/s Baba Export House with dishonest intention accused got the signatures of Mr. Shashidharan Pillai, authorized signatory of M/s Baba Export House on the bank guarantee in question and thereafter forged signatures of bank officials, affixed bank seal and stamp on the same and subsequently furnished it to AEPC. It has been further argued by Ld. APP for State that there was an arrangement between firm of accused M/s Cotton Workshop and M/s Baba Export House that the accused would utilize the quota of 5700 pieces of ladies scarves allotted to M/s Baba Export House by AEPC and would in turn return proceeds of sale to M/s Baba Export House after deducting his profit. However, during transit the original customer invoice (visa) had reportedly lost by accused and thus accused approached M/s Baba Export House for obtaining duplicate visa to be issued by AEPC and also undertook to arrange bank guarantee of Rs.65,500/ for the same. It has been further argued that M/s Baba Export House merely corresponded with AEPC on behalf of M/s Cotton Workshop and accused forged the bank guarantee in question in the name of M/s Baba Export House by offering forged signatures, stamp & seal of UCO Bank on the same.
23. In response to the arguments made by Ld. APP for State it had been vehemently argued on behalf of accused that accused had no role to play in CC No.69/02 FIR No.338/90 Page no. 15 of 18 forging the bank guarantee in question and that he had been falsely implicated in the present case by the police at the instance of M/s Baba Export House. It had been further argued that bank guarantee in question is clearly not issued on behalf of accused but on behalf of M/s Baba Export House. It had been further argued that impugned bank guarantee neither bears signatures of accused nor any sufficient evidence is brought on record to show that accused had forged the bank guarantee in question.
24. Having carefully perused the material on record, this court finds merit in the arguments made on behalf of accused and it is held that the remaining points (ii) to (iv) have not been proved by the prosecution against accused beyond reasonable doubt for following reasons:
i) CFSL report Ex. PW5/A to PW5/C clearly shows that it had not been possible to express any opinion regarding authorship of questioned writing on the forged bank guarantee Ex. PW2/A visavis admitted handwriting of the accused.
ii) No cogent evidence is brought on record by prosecution to prove that bank guarantee Ex. PW2/A was forged by accused.
iii) The bank guarantee in question Ex. PW2/A is issued in favour of AEPC on behalf of M/s Baba Export House. It neither bears the signatures of accused nor it is purported to be issued on behalf of firm of accused i.e. M/s The Cotton Workshop.
iv) No cogent evidence has been brought on record by the prosecution to prove that the accused made any representation to AEPC in accepting the impugned bank guarantee.
CC No.69/02 FIR No.338/90 Page no. 16 of 18
v) No cogent evidence has been brought on record to prove that the bank guarantee in question Ex. PW2/A had been used by the accused except the testimonies of PW2 and PW9 who are authorized signatory and Managing Partner of M/s Baba Export House and are clearly interested witnesses against the accused who would certainly not incriminate themselves for alleged offences in question.
vi) It is nowhere stated by any official of AEPC that the bank guarantee in question was furnished by accused on behalf of M/s Baba Export House. It had been rather deposed by PW8 that the bank guarantee was submitted by M/s Baba Export House.
vii) It had been further stated by PW8, then Director of AEPC during crossexamination that as per their record no other firm except M/s Baba Export House was concerned with the issue of visa waiver with them.
viii) It has been further admitted by PW9 during crossexamination that sale of quota as alleged to have been made by them on behalf of M/s Baba Export House to The Cotton Workshop is permissible only with the permission of AEPC which is not taken in the present case.
25. In lieu of facts, circumstances of the case, aforementioned observations and findings, it is concluded that no sufficient evidence has been brought against accused during entire trial which shows that the bank guarantee in question was prepared, used or furnished by the accused before AEPC with any alleged dishonest intention. Accused cannot be held liable for alleged offences in question merely on the basis of testimonies of CC No.69/02 FIR No.338/90 Page no. 17 of 18 officials of M/s Baba Export House in whose name the forged bank guarantee was infact used. The accused Harish Kumar Magan S/o late Sh. Jaikishan Lal is accordingly acquitted of offences u/s 420/471 IPC for want of evidence.
Announced in the open Court (Akash Jain)
on 10.10.2014 Metropolitan Magistrate06,
Patiala House Court,
New Delhi
CC No.69/02 FIR No.338/90 Page no. 18 of 18