Delhi District Court
Lalit Bansal vs State ..... Responde Nt on 17 December, 2007
IN THE COURT OF SHRI MAHAVIR SINGHAL
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Case ID No. 02402R071 4 5 5 2 0 0 7
Criminal Revision No. 51 / 2 0 0 7
Date of Filing 23 th October 2007
Argumen t s heard on 17 th December 2007
Date of Decision 17 th December 2007
In the Matter of:
LALIT BANSAL
S /o Sh. U.C. Bans al
R/o F 2, Shastri Nagar,
Meerut (U.P.) ..... Petitioner
Versus
STATE ..... Responde nt
O R D E R
P resent revision petition has been filed by revisionist Lalit Bans al against impugned order dated 24.8.2007 passed by Ld. Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Karkardoom a Courts. On 24.8.2007 Ld. ACMM framed charge against accuse d Lalit Bans al, besides other accu sed, in respect of offence U/ s.4 2 0 / 3 4 , 470 / 3 4 , 474 / 3 4 and 473 / 3 4 IPC.
2. Allegations against accuse d Lalit Bans al as mentioned in the charge are as follows:
"Between 27.9.200 4 and 30.9.2004 at his office at 31 Jagda m b a Towers, Preet Vihar, within the jurisdiction of PS Preet Vihar he in Page 1 of 8 furtherance of common intention with coaccuse d dishonestly induced and cheated Mahipal Singh by stating that he would make available forge bank statement and IT returns of two years in the name of Sh. Mahipal Singh for obtaining housing loan from HDFC bank and took Rs.4800 / . Secondly, on 30.9.200 4 at the said place he in furtherance of common intention with coaccused hande d over the documents i.e. bank statem ent and IT returns to Mahipal Singh stating it to be genuine which he kne w or had reasons to believe the same to be false and fabricated bearing the stamp of Income Tax and bank. Thirdly, on 30.9.2004 at the said place he in furtherance of common intention with coaccuse d hande d over the document s i.e. forged bank statem ent and IT returns to Mahipal Singh which were in his posse s sion which he kne w that it were forged with an intention that the same shall fraudulently or dishonestly be used as genuine. Fourthly, on 30.9.2004 from his Indica card bearing No. HR 01 3330 at his instance blank IT challan forms, and some forms bearing the stamp of bank s and income tax office were recovered which he made for making an impres sion intending that same shall be used for the purposes of committing forgery."
3. Order of framing of charge was passed by Ld. ACMM on 12.6.200 7. Present revision is not filed against order dated 12.6.200 7 . However, since charge dated 24.8.200 7 is based on order dated 12.6.200 7 present revision is also pres u m e d against order dated 12.6.200 7. The said order is reprod uced as below:
"12.6.07 Pre.: APP for the State.
Accused on bail with their counsels.
Perused the file and heard the argument s.
Prosecution case, in brief, is that a secret information was received by SI Ashok Kumar that some unscrupulous persons working in the office of Fortune Credits at Preet Vihar, are indulged in the preparation of forged I.D. Proof document s for obtaining credit cards and loan from different Page 2 of 8 bank s. One Mahipal Singh was sent as decoy customer for obtaining bank statement and IT return in his name on the plea that he required it for obtaining housing loan from HDFC bank. There he met accused Lalit Bansal, who told him that they would prepare the bank stateme nt s and IT returns of two years in his name and for that he would have to pay Rs.4800 / . He aske d Rs.500 / as advance, which Sh. Mahipal paid. Accused Lalit Bansal asked him to collect the document s on 30.9.200 4.
A raiding party was formed. On 30.9.200 4, the decoy customer wa s given eight notes of Rs.500 / denomination by SI Ashok after putting his initials for taking delivery of the document s. Ct. Onkar Singh wa s made shado w witnes s. Both of them went to the office, took the delivery of the document s after making payme nt. Raid was conducted in the office, where accused Rajiv Gupta, Amit Arya and Lalit Bans al were found present. At the instance of decoy customer, search of accused Rajiv Gupta was taken. From his posse s sion eight notes of Rs.500 / denomination, bearing the initials of SI Ashok, were recovered. Documents which were prepared in the name of decoy customer were seized bearing the forged stamp of ITO. A case was registered.
On interrogation, accused Rajiv Gupta disclosed that he used to get the forged document s prepared from Ravi Sharma. He was arrested. From his posse s sion, blank bank forms and computer were recovered, with the help of which, the above document s were prepared. At the instance of Ravi Sharma, Kishan Kumar was arrested. From his posses sion blank ITR forms and income tax official's stamp s were recovered. At his instance, accused Narender Pal Singh was arrested. From his posse s sion bogus document s were recovered. The document s were sent to CFSL, where it was opined that author of the forms of Mahipal Singh, was accused Ravi Sharma.
Ld. Counsel Sh. Sanjay Gupta for accuse d Amit Arya submitted that the prosecution did not seize any document to show that the accused wa s the employee or in any way connected with the busines s of abovesaid firm. No recovery of incriminating material was effected from the accused or at his instance in pursuant to the disclosure statement Page 3 of 8 which is inadmis sible in evidence.
Ld. Counsel Sh. Bhard w aj for accused Rajiv Gupta stated that there was no complaint of cheating from any person and posse s sion of duplicate document s is no offence as no wrongful gain has been cause d to accused Rajiv Gupta.
Ld. Counsel Sh. A.K. Pandey for accused Narender Pal Singh and Sh. Arvind Bhard w aj, counsel for accuse d Kishan Kumar stated that there is no material to show that the accused have used in any transaction the rubber stamp s allegedly recovered.
Ld. Counsel Sh. B.S. Chaudh ar y for accuse d Lalit Bans al stated that he was the authorised DSA of HDFC Bank for car loan not for housing loan and it is a case of planted recovery.
Ld. Counsel for accuse d Ravi Sharm a stated that he has no objection qua framing of charge against the accused.
Ld. APP, on the contrary, has argued that the accuse d had an office in the name of Fortune Credits and they used to prepare / s u p pl y forged document s for obtaining loan from the bank s. He further stated that from their posse s sion rubber stamp s of different officials and bank stateme nt s were recovered, posse s sion of which they could not account for.
I have gone through the charge sheet, stateme nt s of witnes s e s and the documents.
At the instance of police, one Mahipal Singh went to the office Fortune Credits, where he met Lalit Bans al, who promised him to provide bank statement s of Bank of Baroda, IT returns of two years in his name for Rs.4800 / . He received an advance on 27.9.200 4. On 30.9.2004, Sh. Mahipal Singh paid the balance amount to Sh. Rajiv Gupta and took the delivery of documents. The recovery of signed notes was effected from accused Rajiv Gupta, when the raid was conducted, from the dash board of car of accused Lalit Bansal, incriminating document s were recovered in pursuant to his disclosure stateme nt. They disclosed about accused Kishan Kumar. His computer was checked, which contained the records of nine incriminating document s, i.e., profit and loss statement s, PAN cards etc. During enquiry, name of accused Ravi Sharma came and when Page 4 of 8 the raid was conducted, he was found in posse s sion of computer etc. with the help of which he had prepared the fake document s in the name of Mahipal Singh. The documents allegedly seized, bear the stamp of State Bank of India with date, income tax officer. From accuse d Kishan Kumar, 17 rubber / s t e el stamp s of different wards of income tax officers alongwith loose papers, filled ITR forms were recovered. From accuse d Narender Pal Singh, 24 rubber stamp s, 19 leads of different numbers were recovered. The seals / s t a m p s and document were verified from the concerned office and it wa s found that the same were not issued from their office. The CFSL report also show s that accused Ravi Sharma had prepared the forged documents.
In the instant case, prosecution did not seize any document to sho w that accused Amit Arya participated in the transaction or was connected in the busines s in the name of Fortune Credits. No recovery was effected from him. Except the disclosure statement, I do not find any incriminating material against accused Amit Arya to connect him with the alleged offence. Prima facie, no case is made out against accuse d Amit Arya. He is discharged of the offence U/s.420 / 4 6 8 / 4 7 1 / 1 2 0 B IPC. His bail bond be cancelled. His surety be discharged.
I do not agree with the contentions of Ld. Counsels for the accused that posses sion of forged document s is no offence. From the statement of witnes s e s and other document s I find that accused had used the document s for the purposes of cheating. May be the person sent by the police was a decoy customer but accused had taken the advance from him, hande d over the forged documents, which they kne w or had reasons to believe to be forged document s and same could be used for obtaining loan from bank s. It has come on record that accuse d had kept the document s for the purpose of cheating / w rongful gain.
Prima facie case is made out against accused Lalit Bans al, Rajiv Gupta for offence punishable U/s.420 / 4 7 1 / 4 7 4 / 3 4 IPC for cheating, using the forged documents as genuine, posse s sion of forged document s intending to use as genuine. In addition, prima facie case for offence punishable U/s.47 3 IPC is made out against accused Lalit Bansal for Page 5 of 8 posses sing counterfeit seal with intention to commit forgery. Prima facie, case is made out against accused Ravi Sharma for offence punishable U/s.46 8 / 4 7 4 IPC for preparing forged document s and for posses sing the document s knowing it to be forged intending to use it as genuine. Prima facie case is made out against accused Kishan Kumar, Narender Pal Singh for offence punishable U/s.473 / 4 7 4 IPC for posse s sing counterfeit seal with intend to commit forgery / d oc u m e nt s knowing it to be forged intending to use it as genuine.
Let the charge be framed against the accuse d persons under aforesaid sections.
Now the case to come up for framing charge on 19.7.200 7."
4. Grievance of the revisionist in the revision is that no incriminating article or docu me n t has been recovered from his posses sion or at his insta nce; that no single witness in his stateme n t has made allegation against him for prepara tion and using forged docu me n t s as genuine; and that the framing of charge against him is erroneou s and against the law.
5. I have heard argume n t s on revision petition from both the parties i.e. Ld. Counsel Sh. B.S. Chau d h a ry for revisionist and Ld. Additional PP Sh. Rames h Kumar for State.
6. During argu me n t s , it is admitted case of revisionist that 'Fortu n e Credits' of Preet Vihar is being run by Lalit Bans al. As per the prosecution case one Mahipal was sent as decoy customer for obtaining bank stateme n t and IT retur n in his name on the plea that he required housi ng loan from HDFC bank. There he met accused Lalit Bans al, who told the said witness that they would prepare the bank state me n t s and IT stateme n t s of two years in his name and for that he would have to Page 6 of 8 pay Rs.4800 / . Accused Lalit Bans al asked Rs.500 / as advance, which decoy witness Mahipal paid. Accused Lalit Bans al asked decoy witness i.e. Mahipal Singh to collect the docume n t s on 30.9.2004. It is worth noting that in the present case charge has been framed against accused Lalit Bans al in respect of all offences U/s .42 0, 471, 474 and 473 read with Section 34 IPC. In other words, as per prosecution case, accuse d Lalit Bans al was sharing intention with other accused.
7. Section 34 IPC provides as below:
"When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone."
8. In view of the admitted facts that 'Fortu n e Credits' is being run by present revisionist Lalit Bans al, in view of the fact that as per prosecution case accused Lalit Bans al agreed to prepare bank stateme n t and IT retur n s for two years in the name of decoy customer in lieu of payment of Rs.4800 / ; and in view of the receipt of Rs.500 / by revisionist Lalit Bans al prima facie connections of revisionist with forged docu me n t s is shown. In view of revisionist Lalit Bans al sharing common intention with co accuse d, I am of the considered view that it is not necess a ry that for the purpose of framing charge against him in respect of offences he should himself forge the docume n t . Even if the docu me n t s were prepared by co accused, he can be charged with the relevant offences becau se of his sharing common intention with others.
9. It is well settled principle of law that at the stage of framing charge it is the prima facie case, which is to be seen. Court is not required to Page 7 of 8 go into meticulous examina tion of witnesse s. On facts as mentioned in the impugne d order dated 12.6.2007 case is prima facie shown against accu sed Lalit Bans al in respect of the offences, with which he has been charged. Thus, present revision petition has no merits.
10. In view of the above discus sion, present revision petition filed by revisionist Lalit Bans al is dismissed. TCR with copy of this order be sent back. Revision file be consigned to Record Room. Annou nced in the open court Today : 17 th day of December, 2007.
(MAHAVIR SINGHAL) Additional Sessions Ju dge Karkardoom a Courts Delhi 110032 Page 8 of 8