Delhi District Court
Unknown vs R. Suryanarayanan Was Working As on 5 February, 2020
lIN THE COURT OF Ms. ANU AGGARWAL,
CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (SOUTH-WEST),
DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
State v. RAJEEV GROVER
FIR No. 426/2001
Police Station : EOW/Crime Branch
Under Section : 420/409/468/471 IPC
Unique Computer ID Number : 1530/2019
Date of institution : 24.11.2001
Date of reserving : 22.01.2020
Date of pronouncement : 05.02.2020
JUDGMENT
a) Date of commission of offence : 05.05.2003
b) Name of the complainant : Sh. D. A. Ulagan, Chief Manager, Indian Bank, Janak Puri, New Delhi.
c) Name, parentage and address : Mr. Rajeev Grover, of the accused S/o Sh. S. S. Grover, R/o 19/33 B, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi.
d) Offence complained of : Section 420/409/468/471 IPC
e) Plea of the accused : Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
f) Final order : Acquittal g) Date of final order : 05.02.2020 BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS AND REASONS FOR THE DECISION 1. The present case has been registered U/s State v. Rajeev Grover FIR No. 426/01 P.S.: EOW/Crime Branch Page 1 of 18
420/409/468/471 IPC. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are as follows :-
It is the case of prosecution that a complaint dated 27.07.2001 was received in the office of Economic Offences Wing. In the said complaint, the complainant i.e. Sh. D. A. Ulagan, Chief Manager of Indian Bank, Janak Puri, New Delhi had alleged that on 12.07.2011, one customer, namely, Ms. Reeta came to remit money in her Savings Bank Account No. 54421 and in the process of ascertaining balance amount, she noticed certain entries in the form of withdrawal of deposits which were never done by her and of unauthorized withdrawals by ATM in account No. 54421, was reported by the complainant to Sh. R. N. Yadav, ABM. He asked her whether she had received her ATM Card on which Ms. Reeta informed him that she did not receive the ATM Card. Further on verifying the passbook it was found that there were six unauthorized credits and 22 withdrawals on various dates. It was also alleged in the said complaint that on 10.07.2001, Rs.8,000/- was remitted by cash in the account, however, the transaction was denied by her. It was further alleged that in the process of inquiry, the Assistant Branch Manager inquired from the receipt cashier Sh.
Surya Narayan about the remittance of Rs.8,000/- on 10.7.2001 who informed that the said remittance was made by Sh. Rajiv Grover, the staff in the branch. Accused was confronted in the presence of Sh. R. N. Yadav (ABM), Mr. P. Shanmugam (Manager) and Mr. Y. P. Kohli (Chief Manager of Circle Office) and on being confronted Sh. Rajiv Grover confessed to have done some transactions in that account and pleaded guilty. Thereafter on 16.07.2001, he remitted Rs.25,000/- through ABM in the account of complainant. It was also alleged in the said State v. Rajeev Grover FIR No. 426/01 P.S.: EOW/Crime Branch Page 2 of 18 complaint that in the wake of the above stated situated, they checked up and verified all the ATM Cards issued as well as pending with them and thus 11 ATM Cards were found to be missing. It was added that their branch had received around 4000 ATM Cards together with its PINs for distribution/issuance to the customers concerned during December, 2000 and January, 2001 and the branch had dispatched all the PINs to the customers by courier to their respective addresses available as per their records during the month of January, 2011 and some of the PINs were returned un-delivered by the courier due to the reasons 'address changed', 'door locked' etc. and during the month of February, 2001, the undelivered PINs have been returned by the courier to the bank. It was suspected that Sh. Rajiv Grover received some of those PINs and used the same. It was claimed that during further inquiry, huge withdrawals were found to be made in SB Accounts bearing no. 712, 2679, 51669, 53561, 54421 on various dates amounting to Rs.8,50,000/- during the period from 15.03.2001 to 12.07.2001. It was alleged that some credit entries were also found to the tune of RS.1,23,000/- in three out of five accounts mentioned above to make good the excess withdrawals in order to avoid debit balances. The details of the credit entries were also given in the complaint.
Vide endorsement dated 08.08.2001, the concerned ACP directed registration of FIR. During the course of investigation, the IO examined various bank officials and customers and collected relevant documents. During the course of investigation, accused was arrested. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the court.
State v. Rajeev Grover FIR No. 426/01 P.S.: EOW/Crime Branch Page 3 of 18
2. After filing of the charge-sheet, accused was summoned and charge for offence punishable U/s 409/420/468/471 IPC was framed against the accused. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. The prosecution has examined 18 witnesses to prove the case:-
3.1 PW-1 Mrs. Anu Sharma was working with Indian Bank, Janak Puri. She has deposed regarding deposit of Rs.5,000/- in cash in account no. 54421 in the name of Mrs. Rita.
3.2. PW-2 Sh. Ram Niwas Yadav was working as Assistant Branch Manager, Indian Bank, Janak Puri. He has deposed regarding facts of the case and denial by the complainant of withdrawing any amount through ATM from her account.
3.3 PW-3 HC Laxmi is the Duty Officer who had recorded the FIR no. 426/01 Ex.PW3/A and the made her endorsement Ex.PW3/B on the rukka.
3.4 PW-4 Mr. Jagdish Chander Singhal was working as Clerk Cum Casher with Janak Puri Branch of Indian Bank from June 1981 to June, 2002. He has deposed regarding cash receipt Ex.PW4/A, receipts Ex.PW4/B and Ex.PW4/C. 3.5 PW-5 Mr. P. Shanmugam was working as Manager with Janak Puri Branch of Indian Bank from September, 2000 to June, 2005. He has deposed regarding interrogation of the accused and confession of accused regarding his involvement.
3.6 PW-6 Mr. D. A. Ulagan was working as Chief Manager with Indian Bank, Janak Puri Branch. He has deposed regarding visit of complainant and the unauthorized withdrawal from her account through ATM. He has also deposed regarding receipt State v. Rajeev Grover FIR No. 426/01 P.S.: EOW/Crime Branch Page 4 of 18 and issuance of ATM cards by their bank and receiving back the undelivered ATM Cards and their PIN and that accused Rajiv Grover was having access to the ATM Section and that during inquiry, it was revealed that accused had withdrawn money from the various accounts using the ATM Cards and their PIN numbers. He also deposed regarding his complaint Ex.PW6/A and providing various documents to the IO.
3.7 PW-7 Smt. Reeta has deposed that when she had gone to deposit an amount of Rs.27,000/- in her account, the person sitting on the inquiry counter had told her that some amount had been withdrawn from her account. She had also deposed that she alongwith her husband had gone to the Chief Manager and had made a complaint and after some days, her money was returned to her.
3.8 PW-8 Sh. Subhash is the husband of PW-7 Smt. Reeta and has deposed on her lines.
3.9 PW-9 Sh. M. L. Dass was working as Manager at Janak Puri Branch and was looking after current account and OD/OC.
He has deposed that he had seen Mr. Rajiv Grover whispering with Mr. R. N. Yadav and Mr. Grover had opened his drover and Mr. R. N. Yadav was given some currency alongwith one SB Pay Slip and figure which were written on the pay in slip. Mr. R. N. Yadav took the money and went towards cash counter and returned after sometime and informed him about shortage of Rs.10/-.
3.10 PW-10 Ms. Anjana Nagpal has deposed that she never applied for any ATM Card and the Indian Bank officials informed State v. Rajeev Grover FIR No. 426/01 P.S.: EOW/Crime Branch Page 5 of 18 her regarding withdrawal of Rs.90,000/- from her account using ATM Card.
3.11 PW-11 Mrs. Seema Nagpal is mother of PW-10 Ms. Anjana Nagpal and has deposed on her lines.
3.12 PW-12 Sh. V. R. Suryanarayanan was working as clerk/shroff in the Indian Bank, Janak Puri Branch. He has deposed regarding deposits of some money in some accounts by accused Ravjiv Grover.
3.13 PW-13 Mrs. Savita Gupta has also deposed regarding various transactions of withdrawal and deposits in her account without her instructions.
3.14 PW-14 Dr. Deepa Verma is the Assistant Director (Documents) FSL. She has examined the documents i.e. Standard documents marked as S1 to S25 and admitted signatures of accused Rajiv Grover A1 to A11 and the questioned documents and gave her report Ex.PW14/A. 3.15 PW-15 Sh. Bihari Lal was working as Clerk/Shroff in Indian Bank, Janak Puri Branch. He has stated that he does not know anything about this case. He was cross-examined by Ld. APP for the State.
3.16 PW-16 Sh. Jayanti Kumar Malik has also deposed regarding unauthorized withdrawals from his account.
3.17 PW-17 HC Jitender had joined investigation with the IO and has deposed regarding the same.
3.18 PW-18 Inspector Ramesh Chander Lamba is the IO of the case and has deposed regarding the investigation conducted by State v. Rajeev Grover FIR No. 426/01 P.S.: EOW/Crime Branch Page 6 of 18 him.
4. No other witness was examined by the prosecution and PE was closed.
5. Accused was examined U/s 313 Cr. P. C. where he has negated all the allegations. He has stated that he was never entrusted with ATM Cards. He has neither deposited nor has withdrawn any amount through ATM. He has not made any confessional statement and a false case has been registered against him.
6. In defence, accused entered into witness box as DW-1. He has deposed that he was working as clerk cum Shroff (cashier) in Indian Bank, Janak Puri Branch and was posted in the said branch in the year 1996. He has further deposed that the branch had received ATM Cards in January, 2001 and was never entrusted with ATM Cards or PIN Numbers and the ATM Cards and the PIN Numbers happened to be in the custody of Assistant Branch Manager or ATM Section Officer Incharge. He has further deposed that he had never handled ATM Cards/PIN Numbers and he came to know later on that the PIN Numbers were dispatched to the customers. He has further stated that he never had PIN Numbers as he was not working in dispatch Section and came to know later on that some PIN Numbers were returned back. He has further deposed that he had never received the returned PIN Numbers and he had never withdrawn any amount from the ATM of any other customers and he was having high appreciation in higher circle of the office and higher officials were directly contacting him which was matter of jealously and ill will in the hand of the Chief Manager, Assistant Manager and close officials. He has further deposed that he had never filled up any pay slip/deposit slip of any other account holder and had also not got filled up any deposit slip of State v. Rajeev Grover FIR No. 426/01 P.S.: EOW/Crime Branch Page 7 of 18 any other customer except his wife. He has further stated that he had never withdrawn any amount from ATM of any other customer or account holder other than himself and his wife.
7. He has stated that Ex.PW4/B is the pay in slip for depositing Rs.1000/- to account no. 99185 on 16.07.2001 against transaction number 408/16/1 and had deposited an amount of Rs.1000/- on 16.07.2001 in the account number 76777 in the name of his wife vide pay in slip Ex.PW4/C against transaction number 407/16/1. He has stated that he never instructed anyone to cancel or club these transactions in the account no. 54421. He has stated that he never paid an amount of Rs.25,000/- to Assistant Branch Manager. He has stated that he never made any confessional statement and ATM Cards were kept in the custody of Assistant Branch Manager/Incharge ATM Section. He has stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case.
8. No other witness was examined by the accused and DE was closed.
9. I have heard the arguments and have gone through the case file. I have also gone through the written submissions as filed by the accused.
10. Ld. APP for the State has argued that prosecution has proved the case beyond all reasonable doubt. All the prosecution witnesses have supported the case of prosecution and the prosecution has been able to prove that the accused took out an amount of Rs.8.5 lakh from various accounts by using ATM Cards of the customers. Therefore, accused should be convicted.
11. Ld. Defence Counsel has argued that there is no evidence on State v. Rajeev Grover FIR No. 426/01 P.S.: EOW/Crime Branch Page 8 of 18 record to prove that accused was entrusted with ATM Card or the keys of ATM Cards. The prosecution has failed to explain the withdrawals. Twenty One withdrawals were made during period from 15.03.2001 to 12.04.2001 in the account of 2679 of Ms. Vidhya Wati and Jayanti Kumar Malik, which was even before 16.04.2001 when the keys were entrusted to the accused. The accused did not make any confessional statement. Accused never deposited any amount in any other account except in the account of his wife. It is stated that there is material contradiction in the testimony of the witnesses and prosecution has not been able to prove its case. Ld. Defence Counsel has argued that accused deserves acquittal.
12. Accused has been charge-sheeted with an offence punishable U/s 409/420/468/471 IPC.
13. Therefore, the prosecution, in order to prove charge U/s 409 IPC, is required to prove that :-
(i) Accused is either a public servant or banker or merchant or agent;
(ii) The accused being in the capacity of public servant, banker, merchant or agent has been entrusted with property;
(iii) That he commits criminal breach of trust in respect of such property.
It is only when the above ingredients are proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt that offence U/s 409 IPC would stand proved.
14. Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code, defines Criminal breach of trust - Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or State v. Rajeev Grover FIR No. 426/01 P.S.: EOW/Crime Branch Page 9 of 18 with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or wilfully suffers any other person so to do, commits "criminal breach of trust".
15. To invoke Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 following ingredients are to be satisfied :
(1) The accused must be entrusted with property or with dominion over property ;
(2) The person so entrusted must -
(a) Dishonestly misappropriate or convert to his own use that property, or
(b) Dishonestly use or dispose of that property or wilfully suffer any other person to do so.
Charge U/s 420 IPC
16. In the instant case, the accused has been charged for the offence punishable U/s 420 IPC. Section 420 IPC reads as follows :-
"Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.- Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces a person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."
State v. Rajeev Grover FIR No. 426/01 P.S.: EOW/Crime Branch Page 10 of 18
17. Cheating is defined in Section 415 IPC and reads as follows :-
"Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces, the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit it he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat".
18. The ingredient required to constitute the offence of cheating are :-
(i) There should be fraudulently or dishonest inducement of a person by deceiving him ;
(ii)(a) The person so deceived should be induced to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property; or
(b) The person so deceived should be intentionally induced to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived; and
(iii) In cases covered by (ii) (b), the act or omission should be one which causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to the person induced in body, mind, reputation or property."
19. Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code
468. Forgery for purpose of cheating.--Whoever commits forgery, intending that the 1[document or electronic record forged] shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with im-
State v. Rajeev Grover FIR No. 426/01 P.S.: EOW/Crime Branch Page 11 of 18 prisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
20. Section 471 of IPC states that whoever fraudulently or dishon- estly uses as genuine any document or electronic record which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document or electronic record, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document or electronic record.
21. The accused has deposed as DW-1 that he was working as clerk cum Shroff (Cashier) with Indian Bank, Janak Puri Branch and he was posted in the said branch in the year 1996. According to the pros- ecution, accused was entrusted with the ATM Cards of Rita for ac- count number 54441, of Vidhya Wati and Jayanti Kumar of account number 712 and 2679, of Savita Gupta for account number 51669, of Anjana Nagpal and Seema Nagpal for account number 53561 and of Rita and Subhash for account number 54421. The accused being en- trusted with the ATM Cards of abovesaid accounts made unauthorized withdrawal during the period 15.03.2001 to 12.07.2001 and also remit- ted some amount in three accounts having number 2679, 51669 and 54421. The PIN numbers of the abovesaid accounts were sent to the customers through courier during the month of January, 2001 but some PINs were returned undelivered during the month of February, 2001. The accused got hold of those PIN numbers and by misusing ATM Card and PIN Numbers, he made unauthorized withdrawals.
22. In order to withdraw the money using ATM Card in the year 2001, both ATM Card and PIN Number was required. Therefore, pros- ecution is required to prove that accused was entrusted with ATM Cards of the above customers and he was also having in his posses-
State v. Rajeev Grover FIR No. 426/01 P.S.: EOW/Crime Branch Page 12 of 18 sion the PIN numbers of the said ATM Cards, for him to make autho- rized withdrawal.
23. PW-2 Ram Niwas Yadav was working as Assistant Branch Man- ager with Indian Bank, Janak Puri Branch. He has deposed that ac- cused was handling the ATM Section as ATM Clerk. After office hours, the Cards were kept under lock and key by respective officer. PW-6 has deposed that accused was working as Cashier cum Clerk in the branch. He has deposed that accused was working in the ATM Section at the relevant time and was having access to that Section as well as to different ATM Officers posted during that period. In the cross-exami- nation, he has deposed that ATM Section Officer and ABM are the custodian of ATM Cards. He has deposed that he does not remember who was Incharge of ATM Section on 12.07.2001. PW-6 has further deposed in the cross-examination that generally all the ATM Cards are in the custody of ABM and ATM Section Officer under his lock and key. It is not disputed by the prosecution that PW-2 was ABM at the rele- vant point of time. There is no document on record to show that ac- cused was working as ATM Section Officer at the relevant point of time and the ATM Cards were entrusted to him. No record from the bank has been produced showing that the ATM Cards were issued to the above customers and were kept under the custody of the accused. The vigilance report dated 23.07.2001 is Ex.PW2/DX. As per vigilance report, following officers were Incharge of ATM Section :-
1. Sh. D. P. Manocha w.e.f. 01.11.2000 to 28.02.2001.
2. Sh. S. B. Tank w.e.f. 01.03.2001 to 30.04.2001.
3. Sh. Shanmugam w.e.f. 01.05.2001 to 15.05.2001.
4. Sh. Kanan w.e.f. 16.05.2001 to 07.07.2001.
5. Sh. R. N. Yadav w.e.f. 08.07.2001 till date.
24. Therefore, even as per vigilance report, accused was never State v. Rajeev Grover FIR No. 426/01 P.S.: EOW/Crime Branch Page 13 of 18 Incharge of ATM Section. When the accused was neither Incharge of ATM Section nor ABM, then how come, ATM Card was entrusted to him.
25. Rather PW-2 R. N. Yadav has deposed in the cross-examination that he never dealt with ATM Section nor was having Charge of ATM Section at any point of time. After going through the vigilance report Ex.PW2/DX, he submitted that he has never worked as ATM Incharge. The vigilance report is of complainant bank and it is clear from the vigilance report, which is the own document of the complainant bank that PW-2 was ATM Incharge at the relevant point of time. When PW-2 was not only working as ABM but also as ATM Incharge at the relevant point of time, there is no question of entrustment of ATM Card to the accused. The prosecution has not produced any document to show that accused was working in the ATM Section at the relevant point of time and was entrusted with ATM Card in question.
26. The prosecution has placed reliance upon key movement register Ex.PW6/P, according to which accused was entrusted with the keys for the period from 16.04.2001 to 02.07.2001. PW-6 has deposed, in the cross-examination, that the entries in Ex.PW6/P are in respect of keys of ATM Machine and ATM Section. He has further deposed that he cannot say if the key is exclusively that of ATM Machine and not of Section. He has further deposed that he does not remember if Ex.PW6/P was the only key register in the branch for the relevant period. He has deposed that the bank does not maintain separate register for keys of cupboards and almirahs and that is why no separate register is maintained in respect of ATM Cards kept in the ABM custody and ABM Section. The perusal of Ex.PW6/P reflects that it does not specify whether the keys are for ATM Machine or for ATM State v. Rajeev Grover FIR No. 426/01 P.S.: EOW/Crime Branch Page 14 of 18 Section. As per Ex.PW6/P, accused was entrusted with the key on 02.07.2001. Before the entry of 02.07.2001, the entry is for the period from 01.01.2001 to 16.04.2001 and the name of the person in whose possession the original keys were, is Anu Sharma Rajeshwari. On Page no. 4 of Ex.PW6/P, Anu Sharma Rajeshwar has signed as a period handing over the keys to accused but the date is not mentioned. Even if for the sake of arguments, the case of prosecution is accepted that the keys of ATM Section where ATM Cards were kept were entrusted to the accused from 16.04.2001 to 02.07.2001, the accused could have withdrawn unauthorized amount from the abovesaid accounts only during the period when he was entrusted with the keys i.e. during 16.04.2001 to 02.07.2001. Neither he could have withdrawn the amount prior to 16.04.2001 nor at any period after 02.07.2001. However, as per prosecution, there is unauthorized withdrawal of an amount for the period from 15.03.2001 to 12.07.2001. The prosecution has failed to prove how the accused withdrew the amount prior to 16.04.2001 and after 02.07.2001, though as per prosecution there is an unauthorized withdrawal prior to 16.04.2001 and after 02.07.2001, being done by the accused.
27. Further, as per prosecution, accused deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- in the account of the complainant after he confessed his crime. PW-2 has deposed that on 16.07.2001, accused entered in the cabin of Chief Manager with plastic bundle and informed him that he was able to arrange Rs.25,000/- only. On the same day, at about 2.00 pm, accused informed that he could not make arrangement for the remaining money. Accused refused to deposit the money by his own hand and by filling the challan in his writing to cash department directly. Accused asked him to deposit Rs.25,000/- in account no. 54421 and gave him duly filled challan. The denomination column was State v. Rajeev Grover FIR No. 426/01 P.S.: EOW/Crime Branch Page 15 of 18 not filled up. He requested the accused to fill the denomination column. Accused went down for completing the challan. Accused opened his drawer and requested him to take out Rs.25,000/- and handed over the filled in challan to him. Accused gave him Rs.10 as there was shortage of Rs.10/- in the packet. In the cross-examination, he has deposed that on 16.07.2001, he had not issued any instructions for clubbing entries no. 407/1 and 408/1 pertaining to bank account in question. He has deposed that pay in slip Ex.PW4/A bears the name of accused Rajeev Grover but when confronted he admitted that it is not bearing the name of the accused. He has admitted that he had given the slip to the cashier and he had deposited the said amount with the cashier.
28. It is stated by PW-2 that accused confessed of his crime orally and made request not to report the matter and that he would deposit the amount till 16.07.2001. That being the case, it is unbelievable that the accused who was under the threat of facing legal action, refused to fill up the pay in slip, refused to give the amount by his own hand to the cashier and also refused to take the said amount out from his own drawer and requested PW-2 to take the amount and to give to the cashier. It is also unbelievable that PW-2 who was aware of the incident did all the above acts for accused. He not only filled up the pay in slip but also paid the amount to the cashier after taking the same out from the drawer of the accused. The entire story as stated by PW-2 is not only unbelievable but against the normal human tendency of any person. Further, as per PW-4, on 16.07.2001, receipt Ex.PW4/A was handed over to him by R. N. Yadav i.e. PW-2.
29. It is the case of the accused that on 16.07.2001, he deposited an amount of Rs.1,000/- in his saving account no. 99185 and an amount of Rs.1000/- in the Saving Bank account no. 76777 pertaining State v. Rajeev Grover FIR No. 426/01 P.S.: EOW/Crime Branch Page 16 of 18 to his wife Alka Arora. The receipts/pay in slips of the above transactions are Ex.PW4/B and Ex.PW4/C. However, the above pay in slips were illegally clubbed with pay in slip for Rs.25,000/- Ex.PW4/A. Thereafter, entries/transactions of pay in slip Ex.PW4/B and Ex.PW4/C were cancelled without his authorization. PW-5 has deposed that as per instructions of R. N. Yadav, he mentioned the name of accused as depositor on Ex.PW4/A. Rs.10/- was given to him by R. N. Yadav. When Ex.PW4/B and Ex.PW4/C were received by him, they were stamped and entry made by the cashier earlier were cancelled. He has also admitted that the amount of Rs.25,000/- was given to him after bank hours by R. N. Yadav. Further PW-2 has stated that he had not issued any instructions to club the entries of 407/1 and 408/1. PW-12 has also deposed that after receiving the cash and giving transaction number, the cashier does not vest with any authority to change or cancel the transaction or club the same with any other transaction. It is clear from the record that the entries were illegally clubbed to show the deposition of Rs.25,000/- in the account of the complainant by the accused.
30. The prosecution has failed to prove as to how the accused got hold of the PIN numbers of the accounts in question for the purpose of withdrawal of money from the ATM. PW-6 has deposed that PIN numbers were dispatched in the month of December, 2000 and January, 2001 and undelivered PIN Numbers would have returned within 2-3 days. The delivery report on record merely reflect that PIN numbers were received back undelivered but it does not show as to whom those undelivered PINs were handed over and how it came in to the possession of the accused. In the absence of the PIN number, it was not possible for the accused to take out any amount from any account using ATM.
State v. Rajeev Grover FIR No. 426/01 P.S.: EOW/Crime Branch Page 17 of 18
31. Further no conclusive FSL report has been filed in the present case. PW-14 Assistant Director FSL has stated that she could not give any definite opinion regarding authoriship of questioned writing/signatures in comparision to the standard writing of the person concerned. Since no definite opinion has been given by the FSL, no reliance can be placed upon the FSL report Ex.PW14/A.
32. In view of the aforesaid discussions, prosecution has failed to prove its case as against accused Rajeev Grover stands acquitted of the offences charged with.
Digitally signed by ANU Announced in open Court on 12.12.2019. ANU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2020.02.25 12:44:51 +0530 (ANU AGGARWAL) CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE SOUTH WEST DISTRICT, DWARKA COURTS NEW DELHI. State v. Rajeev Grover FIR No. 426/01 P.S.: EOW/Crime Branch Page 18 of 18