Delhi District Court
State vs Sudhir Kumar Aggarwal ("Acquitted") ... on 20 November, 2014
Case No.16/1: PS : Subzi Mandi: U/s 120B r/w 465/471/193 IPC DOD: 20.11.2014 IN THE COURT OF POORAN CHAND: CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE: CENTRAL DISTRICT: TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI CC No.:16/1 PS: Subzi Mandi U/s : 120B r/w 465/471/193 IPC Unique ID No.: 02401R0160062011 J U D G M E N T:
______________________________________________________________
(a) S.No. of the case :
(b) Name of complainant : Registrar General, Delhi High Court.
(c) Date of commission of offence : During the year 1990
(d) Name of the accused : Sudhir Kumar Aggarwal
Managing Director of M/s Zebra
Zipper Pvt. Ltd., AG182,
Shalimar Bagh, Delhi110033.
(e) Offence complained of : U/s 465/471/193 IPC
(f) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
(g) Final arguments heard on : 20.11.2014
(h) Final Order : Acquitted
(i) Date of such order : 20.11.2014
State V/s Sudhir Kumar Aggarwal ("Acquitted") Page 1 of 13
Case No.16/1: PS : Subzi Mandi: U/s 120B r/w 465/471/193 IPC DOD: 20.11.2014
BRIEF FACTS & REASONS FOR SUCH DECISION:
1. The facts of the case in brief emanating from the record are that initially a Writ Petition bearing no.2025/90 was filed by M/s Zebra Zippers Pvt. Ltd. against M/s Maruti Zip Fasteners Pvt. Ltd. for perpetual injunction restraining M/s Maruti Zip Fastener Pvt. Ltd. from passing off Trademark, Delivery up and rendition of accounts etc. Thereafter, a separate Suit bearing no.2946/90 was filed by M/s Maruti Zip Fasteners against M/s Zebra Zippers Pvt. Ltd. for permanent injunction restraining passing off Trademark, delivery up and rendition of accounts etc. As per the allegation in the complaint, certain bills bearing no.16 dated 19.06.1986 for Rs.3,800/, bill no.20 dated 30.06.1997 for Rs.4,675/, bill no.21 dated 06.07.1987 for Rs.4,350/ and bill no.8A dated 09.05.1987 for Rs.2,000/ were filed by the complainant i.e. M/s Zebra Zippers Pvt. Ltd.. In the Suit no.2946/90, filed by defendant M/s Maruti Fasteners Pvt. Ltd., it was alleged that bills filed in Suit no.2025/90 were false and fabricated. Notice of the Suit no.246/90 was issued to the defendant i.e. M/s Zebra Zippers Pvt. Ltd. by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and instead of filing the Written Statement of the suit, present accused namely Sudhir Kumar Aggarwal has filed affidavit Ex.PW2/C disowning the filing of abovestated bills.
Lastly, both the Suits were disposed off as compromised and M/s Zebra Zippers Pvt. Ltd. was directed to pay a cost of Rs.10,000/ to the plaintiff which was paid in the Court in Suit No.2946/90. In suit no.2025/90 vide order dated 03.12.1991, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has directed the State V/s Sudhir Kumar Aggarwal ("Acquitted") Page 2 of 13 Case No.16/1: PS : Subzi Mandi: U/s 120B r/w 465/471/193 IPC DOD: 20.11.2014 then Ld. Registrar General, High Court of Delhi to make a complaint in writing against the present accused being the Managing Director of M/s Zebra Zippers Pvt. Ltd. for having committed offence u/s 191/192/193 IPC. Hence, the present complaint u/s 195 r/w S.340 Cr.P.C. was filed by the then Ld. Registrar General, High Court of Delhi alongwith list of witness and list of documents.
2. After taking cognizance in the matter, accused was summoned and supplied with the copy of complaint and documents annexed therewith.
3. After compliance of section 207/208 CrPC, prosecution examined two witnesses in precharge evidence against the spirit of Section 343 Cr.P.C.. A brief scrutiny of their deposition is as under.
4. PW1 Sh. Jai Nath Rai, Assistant, Original BranchII, Delhi High Court deposed that on 18.09.1990 he had made scrutiny of Suit No.2946/90 titled as Maruti Zip Fasteners Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Zebra Zippers Pvt. Ltd. He produced original file of the said Suit. He proved the true copy of plaint in the said Suit as Ex.PW1/A. He further deposed that alongwith the plaint, an application u/o 39 Rule 1 and 2 was also received.
Cross examination of this witness was recorded as NIL despite affording opportunity in this regard.
State V/s Sudhir Kumar Aggarwal ("Acquitted") Page 3 of 13 Case No.16/1: PS : Subzi Mandi: U/s 120B r/w 465/471/193 IPC DOD: 20.11.2014
5. PW2 Sh. Kailash Chand Angnihotri is the witness of the same Original Branch of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi who deposed that complaint Ex.PW2/A bears the signature of Sh. Lokeshwar Prasad, the then Registrar, Delhi High Court, which is identified being familiar with the same. He produced original record of Suit no.2946 of 1990. He further deposed that as per list of documents, bills no.8A, 16, 20 and 21 were filed by Sh. M.L. Mangla, Advocate on behalf of plaintiff. He exhibited the photocopies of the bills as Ex.PW2/B1, B2, B3 and B4 respectively. He duly identified the endorsement made by Sh. S.K. Bansal, Court Master on the original affidavit sworn by Sh. Sudhir Kumar Aggarwal on 02.12.1991 and filed on record on 03.12.1991. The copy of said affidavit is Ex.PW2/C (three pages). He also proved the photocopy of order dated 03.12.1991 passed by Justice Y.K. Sabharwal as Ex.PW2/D. This witness also produced the records of Original Suit no. 2025/1990 of M/s Zebra Zippers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Maruti Zip Fasteners Pvt. Ltd.. He proved the photocopy of plaint consisting of seven pages as Ex.PW2/E. He also proved the order dated 03.12.1991 passed by Justice Y.K. Sabharwal, duly attested by the then Ld. Registrar, Delhi High Court as Ex.PW2/F. In the cross examination, he stated that the Plaint in Suit No. 2025/90 was signed by one Sanjay Aggarwal, Director of M/s Zebra Zippers Pvt. Ltd.. A list of documents was also filed in the said case on 05.07.1990, however the same did not bear signatures of the party but same bear the signature of Sh. V.P. Ghiraiya, Advocate. The list of documents in Suit no. State V/s Sudhir Kumar Aggarwal ("Acquitted") Page 4 of 13 Case No.16/1: PS : Subzi Mandi: U/s 120B r/w 465/471/193 IPC DOD: 20.11.2014 2946/90 bears signature of Sh. M.L. Mangla, Advocate. The photocopies of the four bills filed alongwith this list have been attested by Sh. M.L. Mangla, Advocate.
6. After recording of precharge evidence and also hearing arguments on charge, vide order dated 20.12.1994, charge u/s 120B r/w S.465/471/193 IPC was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
7. In order to prove guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined as much as three witnesses in post charge evidence whereafter the prosecution evidence was closed and the statement of the accused U/s 313 CrPC was recorded on three occasions as first two statements were deferred at request of accused, wherein he claimed to be innocent. The accused opted to lead defense evidence, however no defense witness was examined by the accused.
8. Thereafter, while concluding the statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C., Ld. Predecessor of this Court vide order dated 16.12.2005, exercising his power u/s 319 Cr.P.C., also summoned coaccused namely Sanjay Aggarwal for trial u/s 465/471/197 IPC on filing of process fees.
9. Thereafter, the order of summoning was challenged by coaccused namely Sanjay Aggarwal by way of filing Revision Petition and Ld. Sessions State V/s Sudhir Kumar Aggarwal ("Acquitted") Page 5 of 13 Case No.16/1: PS : Subzi Mandi: U/s 120B r/w 465/471/193 IPC DOD: 20.11.2014 Judge vide order dated 16.02.2009 discharged the coaccused Sanjay Aggarwal. It is also pertinent to mention that statement of accused was recorded on three occasion i.e. 22.01.2005, 20.05.2005 and 16.12.2005, wherein accused has requested to lead defense evidence but since no DE was led, vide order dated 16.12.2005, DE was closed.
10. I have heard arguments advanced at Bar by Ld. Addl. PP for the State on behalf of complainant and Ld. counsel of the accused and perused the entire material on record.
11. Before adverting to the adjudication on the rival contentions of both the sides, it would be appropriate to have a brief scrutiny of the evidence recorded in post charge stage.
12. CW1 (PW1) Sh. Ram Parsad, Judicial Assistant in Hon'ble High Court of Delhi is a formal witness who produced the summoned record in respect of file no.2025/90 and file no.2946/90. He exhibited certain documents on the basis of records produced by him. Document which was already exhibited as Ex.PW2/E during pre charge evidence, was exhibited as Ex.PW1/A. The order of Justice Y.K. Sabharwal dated 03.12.1991 as Ex.PW1/B, photocopy of bills no.16, 20, 21 and 8A as Ex.PW1/C1 to C4 respectively, which were filed in Suit no.2025/90 before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
State V/s Sudhir Kumar Aggarwal ("Acquitted") Page 6 of 13 Case No.16/1: PS : Subzi Mandi: U/s 120B r/w 465/471/193 IPC DOD: 20.11.2014 In the cross examination, he could not explain as to who had signed the suit no.2025/90 Ex.PW1/A as well as list of documents alongwith the said Suit. He further exhibited documents i.e. complaint already exhibited in pre charge evidence as Ex.PW2/A, supporting affidavit already Ex.PW2/C, list of documents dated 12.09.1990 Ex.PW1/D. He further stated that he did not remember if he had brought the judicial record pertaining to suit no. 2946/90 in the Court on 16.07.13. He again said that he had not brought the same on the said date. He did not know from which date the said record is untraceable or whether it is untraceable in fact. H did not have any knowledge about the whereabouts of judicial record of suit no. 2946/90 as he had been posted in Criminal BranchI in the year 2009. Prior to his posting in Criminal BranchI, the aforesaid judicial record was lying in his custody. Previously when he had made statement before the Court on 21.07.03 that the judicial record of the aforesaid suit was not traceable then at that time, he did not bring the said fact to the notice of his superior officer. He volunteered that the said record was subsequently traced out and was actually produced before the Court on 23.10.03. He did not bring the factum regarding tracing out of said judicial record to the notice of his superior officer in writing. He had no personal knowledge about the facts of the aforesaid civil suit or about the suit no. 2025/90 and so he could not tell as to who had signed plaints and list of documents as well as the description of those documents if any, in both the aforesaid suits.
State V/s Sudhir Kumar Aggarwal ("Acquitted") Page 7 of 13 Case No.16/1: PS : Subzi Mandi: U/s 120B r/w 465/471/193 IPC DOD: 20.11.2014
13. PW2 Sh. Gopal Sharma, Assistant Registrar/PA to Registrar General, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi identified the signature of Sh. Lokeshwar Prashad, the then Registrar, Delhi High Court on Ex.PW2/A at points A to H being conversant with the handwriting and signatures of Sh. Lokeshwar Prasad, the then Registrar, Hon'ble Delhi High Court during the ordinary course of his official duties.
In the cross examination, he admitted that he had no personal knowledge regarding the contents of Ex.PW2/A.
14. PW3 Sh. V.K. Mittal, the then Assistant Registrar, Litigation, Hon'ble Delhi High Court tendered his affidavit dated 15.01.2004 as Ex.PW3/1.
In the cross examination, he stated that he joined the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in 1979 as a Senior StenographerI. He had deposed as per record and having no personal knowledge. On seeing Ex.PW2/E (also Ex.PW1/A), he stated that it was signed by Sh. Sanjay Aggarwal as Director of plaintiff, however list of documents Ex.PW1/D is not signed by any parties personally. Accused was the Managing Director of M/s Zippers Pvt. Ltd. and the company pertain to Sudhir Kumar Aggarwal. On the basis of judgment given by Hon'ble High Court in Suit No.2025/90, the present compliant was filed. He denied the suggestion that accused Sudhir Kumar Aggarwal only signed one affidavit Ex.PW2/C. He volunteered that accused also filed certain documents on record in Suit no.2025/90. He had got prepared his affidavit Ex.PW3/1 on his own after being authorised to become a witness by the State V/s Sudhir Kumar Aggarwal ("Acquitted") Page 8 of 13 Case No.16/1: PS : Subzi Mandi: U/s 120B r/w 465/471/193 IPC DOD: 20.11.2014 complainant. He denied the suggestion that the present complaint was filed by Hon'ble High Court on the wrong interpretation of the facts of the case. He further denied the suggestion that accused being the Managing Director of M/s Zebra Zippers Pvt. Ltd., plaintiff in Suit No.2025/90 was made scape goat by the complainant.
15. This is all as far as prosecution evidence in the matter is concerned.
Arguments advanced and case law relied upon :
16. I have heard final arguments advanced at bar by the learned defence counsel as also learned Add. PP and have carefully gone through the evidence recorded in the matter and the documents placed on record by the prosecution in this case.
17. In support of its case Ld. Addl. PP has very vehemently argued that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through the testimonies of prosecution witnesses. It is further argued that accused filed certain forged documents before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi for obtaining favourable order. Further, accused filed a false affidavit in Suit No.2946/90, which is evidence from the material proved on record. Hence, it is prayed that accused may be convicted for the offences charged against him. State V/s Sudhir Kumar Aggarwal ("Acquitted") Page 9 of 13 Case No.16/1: PS : Subzi Mandi: U/s 120B r/w 465/471/193 IPC DOD: 20.11.2014
18. Per contra, Ld. defense counsel has refuted the arguments advanced by Ld. Addl. PP and argued that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts against accused Sudhir Kumar Aggarwal. Hence, it is prayed that in the absence of any incriminating evidence against the present accused, he is entitled for acquittal in the present matter.
19. To prove the charge u/s 120B r/w S.465/471/193 IPC, prosecution was under the duty the prove the fact that accused in criminal conspiracy with other accused namely Sanjay Aggarwal (since discharged) committed forgery with documents and filed them before Court of Law. In the present case, accused Sudhir Kumar Aggarwal was charged for committing forgery by inserting certain words on various bills with intent to cause damage to M/s Maruti Zip Factioners Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur and subsequently filed the said forged bills before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Civil Suit No.2025/90.
20. From the evidence on record, it is clear that Suit no.2946/90 which was filed by M/s Maruti Zip Fastners Pvt. Ltd. against M/s Zebra Zippers Pvt. Ltd and Suit no.2025/90 was filed prior to Suit no.2946/90 by one Sh. Sanjay Aggarwal on behalf of the company. Both the suits were compromised between the parties and Suit no.2946/90 was ordered to be withdrawn subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000/ to the plaintiff by the defendant i.e. M/s Zebra Zippers Pvt. Ltd. on 03.12.1991. Suit no.2025/90 was withdrawn by the plaintiff company wherein Hon'ble High Court has directed the Registrar of State V/s Sudhir Kumar Aggarwal ("Acquitted") Page 10 of 13 Case No.16/1: PS : Subzi Mandi: U/s 120B r/w 465/471/193 IPC DOD: 20.11.2014 Hon'ble High Court of Delhi to file a complaint in writing against Sudhir Kumar Aggarwal, Managing Director, M/s Zebra Zippers Pvt. Ltd.. Accused Sudhir Aggarwal is facing trial in the present case. It is pertinent to mention that accused Sanjay Aggarwal was summoned by Ld. Predecessor of this Court while exercising its power u/s 319 Cr.P.C. as an accused as it has come in evidence that Suit No.2025/90 was filed by Sanjay Aggarwal and pleadings were verified by him. The said order was challenged by way of filing a Revision Petition and Ld. Sessions Court vide its order dated 16.02.2009 discharged accused Sanjay Aggarwal.
21. Present accused is charged for offences u/s 120B r/w S.465/471/193 IPC. A bare reading of these sections is "whatsoever................................." meaning thereby the accused must have forged and filed the false evidence in the judicial proceedings at any stage. But in the present case, it is clear that the Suit no.2025/90 was filed by Sanjay Aggarwal who has been discharged by Ld. Sessions Court vide order dated 16.02.2009 on behalf of M/s Zebra Zippers Pvt. Ltd. and present accused has only filed an affidavit Ex.PW2/C in Suit No.2946/90 pursuant to the notice issued to the company wherein he has admitted that the bills bearing no.16 dated 19.06.1986 for Rs.3,800/, bill no. 20 dated 30.06.1997 for Rs.4,675/, bill no.21 dated 06.07.1987 for Rs.4,350/ and bill no.8A dated 09.05.1987 for Rs.2,000/ were filed by the complainant i.e. M/s Zebra Zippers Pvt. Ltd. without the knowledge of the defendant. It is also pertinent to mention that he has filed the said affidavit Ex.PW2/C with State V/s Sudhir Kumar Aggarwal ("Acquitted") Page 11 of 13 Case No.16/1: PS : Subzi Mandi: U/s 120B r/w 465/471/193 IPC DOD: 20.11.2014 the prayer to withdraw the Suit and decreed in favour of the plaintiff. Therefore, he has not contested the Suit of the plaintiff. It is matter of record that all the bills were false and fabricated which fact had been brought in the notice of the Hon'ble High Court by the present accused. Whatever offence is committed, it was committed in the Suit no.2025/90 which was filed by one Sanjay Aggarwal on behalf of M/s Zebra Zippers Pvt. Ltd. as he has verified the pleadings. But he has been discharged by Ld. Sessions Court vide its order dated 16.02.2009 and the said order attained finality since prosecution has not gone in appeal against the said order. Moreover, no evidence has come on record that present accused has handed over the said forged bills to the counsel to file in the Suit. The counsel of Suit No.2025/90 is not examined as a witness in this case.
22. In these circumstances, for the offence charged in the matter, accused cannot be held guilty as he himself has not filed any affidavit verifying the pleadings in Suit no.2025/90. Therefore, in my view no criminal liability can be fastened upon this accused.
23. In view of above reasons, there is no incriminating evidence come on record against the accused as affidavit Ex.PW2/C cannot be termed as false evidence as that stating therein [ forged bills] is the true fact. Hence, accused Sudhir Kumar Aggarwal is acquitted of the charges in this case. State V/s Sudhir Kumar Aggarwal ("Acquitted") Page 12 of 13 Case No.16/1: PS : Subzi Mandi: U/s 120B r/w 465/471/193 IPC DOD: 20.11.2014
24. Bail bonds of the accused shall remain in operation for a further period of six months in terms of S.437A Cr.P.C. File be consigned to the Record Room after compliance of necessary formalities.
Announced in the open court (Pooran Chand)
on 20.11.2014 Chief Metropolitan Magistrate:
Central District:Tis Hazari Courts
Delhi
State V/s Sudhir Kumar Aggarwal ("Acquitted") Page 13 of 13