Delhi District Court
State vs . : Mange Ram on 18 February, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH. HEM RAJ, METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
WEST - 09, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
STATE Vs. : MANGE RAM
FIR No : 446/98
U/S : 25 r/w Section 30 Arms Act
& 471/468/420 IPC
P.S : VIKAS PURI
1. Serial No. of the Case : 662/2
2. Unique ID of the Case : 02401R0137191999
3. Date of Commission of Offence : 19.07.1998
4. Date of institution of the case : 14.05.1999
5. Name of the complainant : ASI Om Prakash
6. Name of accused, parentage & : Mange Ram
address. S/o Sh. Tula Ram
R/o H. No. 83,
Village Hastsal, Delhi.
7. Offence complained U/S : 25/30/54/59 Arms Act &
471/468/420 IPC
8. Plea of Accused : Pleaded Not Guilty.
9. Final Order : Acquitted
10.Date of Final Order : 18.02.2013
J U D G M E N T
1 The Prosecution filed a Chargesheet against the accused with the allegation against the accused that on 19.07.1998 at about 11.30 AM at H. FIR No. 446/98 STATE V/s MANGE RAM PAGE No. 1/15 No. 83, Kaushik Kuteer, Village Hastsal, Delhi accused was found in possession of one D88L 12 Bore Gun alongwith live cartridges and accused used fraudulently a forged licence and committed forgery intending that the licence shall be used for the purpose of cheating and dishonestly concealed the fact of forged licence and intentionally deceived the authority to believe that he has valid arms licence. After completion of investigation by the police, chargesheet for commission of offences U/s 25/30/54/59 Arms Act & 471/468/420 IPC was filed against the accused.
2 Compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C. was made and accused was supplied the copy of the charge sheet along with other documents. Later on, vide order dated 24.01.2000, charge for offences under sections 25 r/w Section 30 Arms Act & 471/468/420 IPC was framed by my Ld. Predecessor Sh. A.S. Dateer to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 3 In order to prove the case against accused, prosecution examined total thirteen witnesses in all.
4 PW1 is Qummardin Khan, Custodian AP Property, Jammu who attested photocopy of Arms Issue Register Page No. 292 after tallying the FIR No. 446/98 STATE V/s MANGE RAM PAGE No. 2/15 same from original Ex. PW1/A and forwarded the verification report in the name of accused Mange Ram Ex. PW1/B. In the cross examination he admitted that he only attested the documents on the basis of original record.
5 PW2 V.K. Sharma was the Retired Under Secretary (Home Department), J& K. He deposed that he had not extended the purchase period of arms licence of Mange Ram. He further deposed that on inquiry Ex. PW2/A was not extended by him nor any entry was found in the record of the office. He proved his report Ex. PW2/A and recovering letter Ex. PW2/B1.
He was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused. 6 PW3 Inspector Ranjeet Singh deposed that on 05.04.1998 under the supervision of Inspector Ranjeet Singh he arrested accused Vijay @ ghodu incase FIR No. 181/98, PS RK. Puram.
In the cross examination he admitted that name of accused Mange Ram was not mentioned in the disclosure statement of Vijay @ Ghodu.
7 PW4 ASI Jai Prakash deposed that on instruction of Jai Singh he went FIR No. 446/98 STATE V/s MANGE RAM PAGE No. 3/15
to the house of Mange Ram and obtained the photocopy of licence no. 519/JDM/95 issued from Jammu.
He was cross examined by accused.
8 PW5 Nisar Husain deposed that on 12.081998 he was posted as MHCM at PS Bakshi Nagar, District Jammu and on that day SI Inder Jeet Singh of PS Vikas Puri came to him in the investigation of case FIR No. 446/98 for verification of Mange Ram. He further deposed that on enquiry in the record of PS Bakshi Nagar, no mentioned was found about Mange Ram and his arms licence no. 519/JDM/94.
9 PW 6 Inspector Om Prakash Singh despoed that on on 19.07.1998 he was handed over photocopy of arms licence no. 519/JDM/95 of accused Mange Ram issued from Jammu by ACP Special Cell L.N. Rao and he was directed to enquire the same. Further he deposed that he alongwith ASI Om Prakash, SI Vishal Singh, HC Suresh Kumar and Ct. Ganga Ram reached at the house of accused who on their asking produced the photocopy of licence stating that original was not available with him. He produced one double barrel point 12 bore gun with no. 3822996 with 9 live cartridges of no. 1. IO Om Prakash prepared the sketch of the gun and the cartridges Ex. PW6/A. FIR No. 446/98 STATE V/s MANGE RAM PAGE No. 4/15 He identified the copy of licence as Ex. PW6/A. The seizure memo of gun and cartridges Ex. PW6/C was made. He proved the arrest memo of accused Ex. PW6/D. He further deposed that case property was deposited in the malkhana of PS. In his cross examination he admitted that he had no personal knowledge about the correctness of the arms licence of the accused. 10 PW7 HC Darshan, Duty officer proved the FIR as Ex. PW7/A and endorsement on the rukka Ex. PW7/B. 11 PW8 HC Suresh Kumar deposed on similar lines to what has been deposed by PW6 Inspector Om Prakash Singh. He correctly identified the gun Ex. P1 and cartridges Ex. P2 to P9.
He was not cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused. 12 PW9 Inspector Inderjeet Singh deposed that on 19.08.1998 he alongwith SI Anil Kumar went to DM Office, Jammu where judicial clerk handed over him photocopy of arms licence register 1995 page no. 292 on the written request of Anil Kumar Ex. PW9/B which was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW9/A. He further deposed that attested copy of page no. 292 of FIR No. 446/98 STATE V/s MANGE RAM PAGE No. 5/15 Arms Register, 1995 bearing entry no. 519/JDM/95 duly attested by ADM Ex. PW1/A was provided to him. He deposed that the said entry pertained to accused Mange Ram and his licence with all India jurisdiction was valid upto 27.02.1998. He further deposed that on 04.09.1996 he deposited the case property vide RC 88/21/98 at FSL Malviya Nagar.
In his cross examination he stated that Ex. PW1/E was attested by ADM, Jammu in his presence. He further stated that as per record, the licence of accused was valid with All India Jurisdiction. 13 PW10 M.L. Anand, partner of Anand Armoury deposed that as per his record, vide bill no. 3562 dated 06.06.1997, he sold one DDBL gun of 12 bore bearing no. 38229 and 25 cartridges to Mange Ram S/o Tula Ram Tyagi R/o Shakti Nagar, Jammu having present address at Kaushik Kuteer, Hastsal, Delhi. He proved the relevant bill as Ex. PW10/A. He was not cross examined by Ld. Counsel.
14 PW11 Udai Sahai granted the sanction U/s. 39 Arms Act. He proved his report Ex. PW11/A. 15 PW12 K.C. Varshney, Additional Director, FSL, Rohini, Delhi deposed FIR No. 446/98 STATE V/s MANGE RAM PAGE No. 6/15
that on 04.09.1998 two sealed parcels with the intact seal of OPS was received in the FSL. On opening parcel no. 1, it found containing one DDBL gun 12 bore which was marked as F1 and parcel no. 2 was found containing 5 cartridges of 12 bore which were marked as A1 to A9. He further deposed that on examination, the gun marked as F1 and cartridges marked A1 to A9 were found to be arm and ammunition under the Arms Act. He proved his report Ex. PW12/A. 16 PW13 Inspector Anil Kumar deposed that on further investigation assigned to him he took accused Sonipat for recovery of arm licence but could not be recovered. He proved his application Ex. PW8/A made to local police station at PS Bakshi Nagar for the verification of the antecedents of accused Mange Ram. He proved the report of concerned PS Ex. PW13/B. He also deposed about the application Ex. PW9/B made to the office of DM. He deposed that he recorded the statement of licencing officer Sh. V.K. Sharma and ADM Sh. Shirajuddin Wani who denied their signatures on the photocopy of the licence. He also deposed that he collected the speciment signatures of various witnesses but same could not be sent for verification to FSL as the forged arm licence was the photocopy and on the basis of same, no opinion could have been taken.
FIR No. 446/98 STATE V/s MANGE RAM PAGE No. 7/15 17 in his statement U/s 313 Cr.PC the accused denied that the allegations
against him and submitted that he was falsely implicated in this case. He submitted that he had one licence from Jammu and on his failure to pay illegal gratification to IO, he was falsely implicated in this case. The accused did not lead any defence evidence.
18 I have heard the arguments as advanced by the Ld. APP for the State and the Ld. Counsel for the accused.
19 It has been submitted by Ld. APP that the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of accused beyond the reasonable doubt It has been further stated that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are reliable and trustworthy which have been able to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond the reasonable doubt.
20 On the other hand, the Ld. Defence Counsel has argued that no incriminating material has come on the record against and the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
FIR No. 446/98 STATE V/s MANGE RAM PAGE No. 8/15 21 The accused in the present case has been charged with offence under
Section 420/468/471 IPC. The essential ingredients of the offence of Cheating under section 420 IPC are as follows:
(i) deception of a person either by making a false or misleading representation or by dishonest concealment or by any other act or omission;
(ii) fraudulent or dishonest inducement of that person to either deliver any property or to consent to the retention thereof by any person or to intentionally induce that person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so delivered; and
(iii) such act or omission causing or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property.
To constitute an offence under section 420, there should not only be cheating, but as a consequence of such cheating, the accused should have dishonestly induced the person deceived
(i) to deliver any property to any person, or
(ii) to make, alter or destroy wholly or in part a valuable security (for anything signed or sealed and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security). 22 In Vimla (Dr.) Vs. Delhi Administration, AIR 1963 SC 1572, the Apex Court explained the meaning of the expression " defraud" thus:
"the expression 'defraud' involves two elements, namely, deceit and injury to the person deceived. Injury is something other that economic loss, that is, deprivation of property, whether movable or immovable, or of money, and it will include any harm whatever caused to any person in body, mind, reputation or such others. In short, it is a non economic or non pecuniary loss. A benefit or advantage to the deceiver will almost always cause loss or detriment to the deceived. Even in those rare cases where there is a benefit or advantage to the deceiver, but no corresponding loss to the deceived, the second condition is satisfied".
23 The Penal Code however defines " fraudulently", an adjective form of the word " fraud" in Section 25, as follows:
FIR No. 446/98 STATE V/s MANGE RAM PAGE No. 9/15 'Fraudulently' A person is said to do a thing fraudulently if he does that thing with intent to defraud but not otherwise.
The term " fraudulently" is mostly used with the term " dishonestly" which is defined in Section 24 as follows:
'Dishonestly' Whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person is said to do that thing 'dishonestly'.
It follows therefore that by merely alleging or showing that a person acted fraudulently, it cannot be assumed that he committed an offence punishable under the Code or any other law, unless that fraudulent act is specified to be an offence under the Code or other law.
24 To attract Section 420 IPC, the prosecution is required to proved on record that the accused has received some person and induced him to deliver any property or alter or destroy any valuable security or anything which can be converted into the valuable security. In the present case, the prosecution was required to prove on record that accused has induced or deceived the licencing authority to issue a licence in favour of the accused which he otherwise was not entitled to. PW2 V.K. Sharma deposed that the licence Ex. PW2/A was not extended by him and the same was forged and that no entry in this regard was found in the record of the office. However, no evidence has come on record by the prosecution that if the said entry was not genuine then how and under what circumstances the said licence was forged but no evidence has been collected by the prosecution in this regard. It has also not been brought on record that the particulars furnished by the FIR No. 446/98 STATE V/s MANGE RAM PAGE No. 10/15 accused are not genuine. The prosecution has alleged that the accused had furnished the fake particulars of his Jammu address but no documentary evidence has been brought on record in this regard. In my opinion, for want of evidence on record, it can be safely concluded that accused has not deceived or induced the authority to issue a licence in his favour. Accordingly, prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused U/s. 420 IPC.
25 Now I come to Sections 468 and 471 IPC. Section 463 of IPC defines forgery. Section 464 of IPC defines making the false documents. The analysis of Section 464 of IPC reveals that it provides forged documents into three categories which can be summarized as under: A. The first is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently makes or executes a document with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document was made or executed by some other person, or by the authority of some other person, by whom or by whose authority he knows it was not made or executed.
B. The second is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document in any material part, without lawful authority, after it has been made or executed by either himself or any other person.
C. The third is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, execute or alter a document knowing that such person could not by reason of (a) unsoundness of mind; or (b) intoxication; or
(c) deception practised upon him, know the contents of the document or the nature of the alteration.
FIR No. 446/98 STATE V/s MANGE RAM PAGE No. 11/15 26 Section 468 IPC provides when the forgery is done for the purpose of
cheating. Section 470 IPC defines a forged document and electronic record which is made wholly or in part by forgery. To attract the aforesaid provisions, prosecution was supposed to bring on record such material which would have shown prima facie commission of offences under the aforesaid sections.
27 As far as Section 468 IPC is concerned, the prosecution was suppose to bring on record the evidence showing that it was the accused himself who committed the forgery in as much as he made some false documents U/s. 464 IPC. However, there is nothing on record that accused had committed forgery or had prepared any forged documents. The signatures and the handwritings of accused were not taken and sent to FSL for comparison. It is not the case of prosecution that accused was found in possession of some forged seals or some documents which were forged. There is nothing on record to that sort. Hence, prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the accused U/s. 468 IPC.
28 As far as Section 471 IPC is concerned to prove the charges against the accused, the prosecution was require to prove that the accused FIR No. 446/98 STATE V/s MANGE RAM PAGE No. 12/15
fraudulently or dishonestly used a document or a electronic record as genuine and further that the accused knew or have reason to believe the same to be a forged one. What amounts to forgery has been defined in section 463 IPC which says that a person is said to commit forgery if he makes a false document or false electronic record of part of the same with intend to do things as mentioned in said section. Section 464 IPC defines when a person can be said to make a false documents or false electronic record.
29 The first condition to prove the case against the accused for the commission of offence U/s 471 IPC is that the accused must have used certain documents or electronic record which is forged and the accused has the knowledge or the reasons to believe the same. Unfortunately, in the present case no document has been proved on the record by the Prosecution which was found to be forged. Since I have already hold that prosecution has not brought any evidence on record to suggest that the licence was a forged licence, hence, it can also be held that accused has not used any document as genuine which was a forged document. Therefore, there is not an iota of evidence to suggest the commission of offence by the accused U/s.
471 IPC. Hence, I opined that prosecution has not proved the charges FIR No. 446/98 STATE V/s MANGE RAM PAGE No. 13/15 against the accused U/s. 471 IPC as well.
30. Now I come to other charges i.e. Section 25 r/w Section 30 Arms Act, 1959. It is the case of prosecution that accused had been found in possession of one double barrel gun of 12 bore alongwith live cartridges and the licence showed by him was forged, but as held by me that the prosecution has failed to prove the licence as forged, therefore the possession of accused cannot be termed as unlawful or without any licence. Accordingly, the prosecution case cannot succeed in this charges as well. 31 From the above said discussions, I am of the opinion, that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case against the accused on the record. Therefore, accused Mange Ram is hereby acquitted of offences U/s 420/468/471 IPC and Section 25 r/w Section 30 Arms Act, 1959, he has been charged with. He be set at liberty forthwith. His bail bonds are canceled. Surety bond is discharged. However, B/Bs furnished by the accused in view of the mandate of section 437A of Cr.P.C shall remain enforceable for a period of six months from today. Original documents, if any, be returned to the concerned parties after the cancellation of the endorsements, if any, after the confirmation of their identity. File be FIR No. 446/98 STATE V/s MANGE RAM PAGE No. 14/15 consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT (HEM RAJ)
TODAY i.e. ON 18 February, 2013 th
MM09:WEST:THC:18.02.2013
FIR No. 446/98 STATE V/s MANGE RAM PAGE No. 15/15