Delhi District Court
State vs : Venu Gopal @ Venu Gopalan on 23 September, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUDHANSHU KAUSHIK : ACMM-01 :
CENTRAL DISTRICT : TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
State Vs : Venu Gopal @ Venu Gopalan
FIR No. : 144/2012
U/s : 471/419/465 IPC & 3/5 Emblem &
Names Act 1950
PS : Crime Branch
Unique Identification No. 02401R0342202012
Date of Institution: 25.07.2012
Date of Judgment reserved on: 23.09.2014
Date of Judgment: 23.09.2014
Brief details of the case
A. Sl. No. of the case 000032/CR
B. Offence complained of
or proved U/s 471/419/465 IPC
C. Date of Offence 17.05.2012
D. Name of the complainant Sh. Jagjeet Singh Deswal
Staff Officer to CP, Delhi
E. Name of the accused Venu Gopal @ Venu Gopalan
S/o Nanjudiah
R/o H.No.646, 1st Floor, Sun
Light Colony-I, Delhi &
No.7, 4th Cross, SH Lay Out,
K.B.Sandra, RT Nagar Post,
Banglore-32
F. Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
G. Final order Convicted
H. Date of Order 23.09.2014
Judgment
On the accusation of committing the offence of cheating by
personation by representing himself as Private Assistant (PA) of Smt. Nalini
FIR No.144/2012 State Vs Venu Gopal @ Venu Gopalan Page 1 of 9
P.Chidambram, wife of Sh. P.Chidambram, the then Union Home Minister and
knowingly using a forged visiting-card to support his said claim, Venu Gopal
@ Venu Gopalan (hereinafter referred to as ' accused' ) was sent up for trial for
committing offences punishable under Section 419/465/471 IPC and Section 3
read with Section 5 of Emblem & Names Act 1950.
Brief Facts as disclosed in the charge-sheet
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 17.05.2012, accused went to the office of Commissioner of Police, Delhi and expressed his desire to meet the Commissioner introducing himself as Personal Assistant (PA) to Smt. Nalini P.Chidambram. Sh. Jagjeet Singh Deshwal (PW-1) (hereinafter referred to as ' complainant' ), who was attached as Staff Officer with the Office of Commissioner of Police informed him about nonavailability of the Commissioner and directed him to come on some other day. Subsequently, on 21.05.2012, accused again approached the same office making a similar representation and this time also, the Commissioner was not available at the office. The repeated visits created suspicion in the mind of complainant about the identity of accused. On the written complaint lodged by him, present FIR bearing number 144/2012 under Section 419/465/471 IPC and Section 3 read with Section 5 Emblem & Names (Prevention of improper use) Act 1950 was registered at Police Station Crime Branch. The prosecution' s case proceed further that during the course of investigation, on 26.05.2012, on the pointing of his acquaintance Jagjit Singh (PW-3), accused was arrested from IGI Airport . Forged visiting cards were seized and statements of the office staff of Smt. Nalini P.Chidambra were recorded. During the course of investigation, various FIR No.144/2012 State Vs Venu Gopal @ Venu Gopalan Page 2 of 9 other persons, who came in contact with accused, were examined and these persons also mentioned that accused used to represent himself as PA of Smt. Nalini P.Chidambram. Their statements were recorded and on completion of investigation, charge-sheet was put to the court.
3. Copies of the charge-sheet were supplied to the accused and charges under Section 419/465/471 IPC were framed against him to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Witnesses Examined
4. Nine prosecution witnesses were examined.
PW-1 Jagjeet Singh Deshwal (Complainant) supported the contents of his written complaint (Ex.PW-1/A). He mentioned that accused met him and represented himself as PA of Smt. Nalini P.Chidambram. He stated that in order to support his claim, accused produced a forged visiting card bearing the National Emblem. The visiting card is Ex.P1.
PW-2 ASI Anita (Working at the office of Commissioner of Police, PHQ, ITO, New Delhi) mentioned about the visits of accused on 17.05.2012 and 21.05.2012. She stated that accused came to the office on these dates and represented himself as PA of Smt. Nalini P.Chidambram. She also deposed that in order to support his claim, accused produced a forged visiting card.
PW-3 Jagjit Singh (Friend of accused) stated that he met the accused through a common friend. He mentioned that he accompanied the police officials of Crime Branch to IGI Airport and identified the accused.
PW-4 Praveen Kumar (Driver of accused) stated that he worked with the accused on a monthly salary of around Rs.8,000/- per month. FIR No.144/2012 State Vs Venu Gopal @ Venu Gopalan Page 3 of 9
PW-5 Ashok Kumar Bali (Acquaintance of accused) mentioned that accused took his office on rent of Rs.10,000/- per month and at that time, he introduced himself as PA of Smt. Nalini P.Chidambram, wife of the then Union Home Minister.
PW-6 Sumit Khanna (Acquaintance of accused) stated that accused met him through a common friend (Jagjit Singh) and introduced himself as PA of Smt. Nalini P.Chidambram. He mentioned that accused made a false representation that he was working as PA of Smt. Nalini P.Chidambram and induced him to hand over a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- to him. He also mentioned about the forged visiting card of accused.
PW-7 Sawinder Singh (Landlord of accused) mentioned that he rented out his flat to the accused on a monthly rent of Rs.14,000/- per month.
PW-8 Jasbir Singh (Acquaintance of accused) mentioned that accused met him on various occasions and on each occasion, represented himself as PA to Smt. Nalini P.Chidambram. He stated that accused boasted of his connections with the Ministry and used to claim that he can get the work done from any Ministry or Government Office.
PW-9 Rajesh Kumar Saini (Witness who printed the visiting card) stated that visiting cards were printed by him on the order placed by the accused and at that time, accused produced the requisite authority letter.
5. Statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C wherein he denied all the allegations and stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He mentioned that Sumit Khanna (PW-6) never handed over to him the alleged amount of Rs.2,50,000/-. He stated that this FIR No.144/2012 State Vs Venu Gopal @ Venu Gopalan Page 4 of 9 witness has falsely deposed against him on account of some previous rivalry. No defence witness was examined by him.
Arguments
6. I have heard Ld. APP for State as well as Ld. Defence Counsel and carefully gone through the entire material available on record.
7. Ld. Defence Counsel has argued that prosecution has failed to establish its case. He contended that the evidence on record is not sufficient to conclusively arrive at a finding that accused made dishonest or fraudulent inducement to the complainant or that complainant acted upon the purported inducement. It has been argued by the counsel that, even if, the prosecution' s case is taken to be absolutely correct, still, the offence of cheating is not made out and, at best, the act of accused can only be termed as an attempt to cheat. He contended that it is the prosecution' s case itself that complainant neither believed the representation of the accused nor acted on it, therefore, the question of his being cheated by the accused does not arise.
8. On the other hand, Ld. APP has countered the arguments of defence arguing that the prosecution' s case stands proved beyond reasonable doubt. He contended that the testimony of Sumit Khanna (PW-6) demonstrates that he was persuaded by the misrepresentation of accused and acting upon the said misrepresentation, he handed over a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- to him. He has submitted that although, complainant did not believe the false representation of accused but Sumit Khanna(PW-6) fell into the trap and accused managed to extract a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- from him by boosting about his political cult and connections with high-ranking government officials. He has argued that the FIR No.144/2012 State Vs Venu Gopal @ Venu Gopalan Page 5 of 9 requisite criminal intention (mens-rea) to cheat can be inferred from the testimony of witnesses and charges stand proved.
Brief reasons for decision
9. I have perused the record in the light of respective arguments.
10. The main evidence on record is the testimony of victims who believed the representation of accused that he was working as PA to Smt. Nalini P Chidambram, wife of Sh. P.Chidambram, the then Union Home Minister. The visiting card which was recovered from the possession of accused is also a material piece of evidence. It has been argued by the defence counsel that complainant, on whose complaint, the present FIR was registered, never believed the representation of the accused and therefore, no offence was committed. I do not find force in the said line of arguments. Complainant Jagjit Singh Deswal (PW-1) deposed that accused came to the office of Commissioner of Police at ITO, New Delhi and introduced himself as PA of Smt. Nalini P Chidambram. He stated that accused expressed his desire to meet the Commissioner of Police but at that time, the commissioner was not available in the office. This witness has made reference to a visiting card (Ex.P1) bearing National Emblem stating that, in order to support his claim, accused produced the said visiting card. He stated that after seeing the visiting card, he became suspicious about the identity of accused. He mentioned that he made inquiries and found that accused was impersonating himself as PA of Smt. Nalini P Chidambram. He stated about the written complaint lodged by him with the police. I agree with the arguments of the defence to the extent that complainant was not cheated as he did not believe the representation of accused FIR No.144/2012 State Vs Venu Gopal @ Venu Gopalan Page 6 of 9 but the testimony of this witness is relevant to establish that accused did represent himself as PA of Smt. Nalini P Chidambram.
11. Prosecution examined various persons who were acquainted to the accused and these persons deposed that accused used to represent himself as PA of Smt. Nalini P Chidambram. Jagjit Singh (PW- 3), Ashok Kumar Bali (PW-5), Sumit Khanna (PW-6) and Jasbir Singh (PW-8 ) have deposed that accused used to represent himself as PA of Smt. Nalini P Chidambram. On perusing their testimony, it becomes evident that at one point or the other, accused made a false representation to these persons that he was working as a PA of Smt. Nalini P Chidambram. Testimony of these witnesses goes on to show that on routine basis, accused used to make false representation about his political connections by pretending to be PA of Smt. Nalini P Chidambram.
12. The argument of defence that record does not demonstrate the cheating part, does not hold ground. Testimony of Sumit Khanna (PW-6) is relevant to establish that accused committed cheating by personation. Sumit Khanna deposed that his friend Jagjit Singh introduced him to the accused and at that time, accused presented himself as PA of Smt. Nalini P Chidambram. He stated that believing upon the representation of accused, he paid a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- to him. He identified the accused in the court and mentioned that in order to support his false claim, accused showed his visiting card wherein it was mentioned that he was working as PA of Smt. Nalini P Chidambram. He stated about clearing various medical bills of the accused. It is apparent from the testimony of this witness that at time of clearing the medical bills of the accused and advancing him a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-, he was persuaded by the FIR No.144/2012 State Vs Venu Gopal @ Venu Gopalan Page 7 of 9 misrepresentation of the accused. He mentioned that he handed over a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- to the accused thinking that he would be helpful to him in his business. Thus, the misrepresentation of the accused that he was working as PA to Smt. Nalini P Chidambram played upon the mind of this witness and it was only because of this inducement that he handed over a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- to the accused and cleared his medical bills. The testimony of this witness, which has remained unblemished during cross examination, leaves no scope for doubt that accused committed the offence of cheating by personation.
13. Record shows that the charges under Section 465 IPC and Section 471 IPC have also been proved. The allegations against the accused were that in order to support his false representation that he was working as a PA of Smt. Nalini P. Chidambrum, he forged a visiting card wherein it was shown that he was working in the said capacity. The visiting card presented by the accused is Ex.P1. In order to establish that visiting card was prepared on the instruction of accused, prosecution examined Rajesh Kumar Saini (PW-9) who was running a printing press at Kashmere Gate. This witness deposed that accused approached him and produced an authority letter for getting the visiting card printed at his press. He mentioned that he printed around 400 visiting cards at the instance of accused and the card (Ex.P1) seized by the police is one of those cards. The deposition of this witness leaves no scope for doubt that accused committed the offence of forgery by preparing a false visiting card. There is ample evidence to establish that accused fraudulently and dishonestly used this forged visiting card as genuine knowing fully well that it was a forged document. It has been established beyond reasonable doubt that accused committed the offence of FIR No.144/2012 State Vs Venu Gopal @ Venu Gopalan Page 8 of 9 cheating by impersonation by presenting himself as PA of Smt. Nalini P. Chidambrum and in order to support his false claim, he got prepared forged visiting cards and used those cards as genuine. In view of the discussions made in the afore-stated paras, I hold the accused Venu Gopal @ Venu Gopalan guilty of committing offences punishable under Section 419/465/471 IPC.
Be heard separately on the point of sentence.
Announced in open Court (SUDHANSHU KAUSHIK)
on 23.09.2014 ACMM-01, Central District,
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
It is certified that this judgment contains Nine (09) pages and each page bears my signatures.
(SUDHANSHU KAUSHIK) ACMM-01, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi FIR No.144/2012 State Vs Venu Gopal @ Venu Gopalan Page 9 of 9