Delhi District Court
Gulam Ahmed Raza vs State on 15 November, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHEETAL CHAUDHARY PRADHAN
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE - 02 : SOUTH EAST DISTRICT
SAKET COURT : NEW DELHI
Criminal Appeal No.168/2025
FIR No.224/2010
State Vs. Gulam Ahmad Raza
PS: Jamia Nagar
U/Sec.419/420/468/120B IPC
In the matter of :-
Mr. Gulam Ahmad Raza
S/o Sh. Md. Nuruzzaman
R/o Village + PO Haliya Tehsil Lal Ganj,
Distt. Mirzapur (U.P.)
..........Appellant
Versus
The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
Through SHO PS Jamai Nagar, Delhi
..........Respondent
Date of Institution : 21.05.2025
Date of Arguments : 17.09.2025
Date of Order : 15.11.2025
Decision : Appeal allowed.
CA No.168/2025 PS Jamia Nagar FIR No.224/2010 Gulam Ahmad Raza Vs. State Page No.1 of 41
JUDGMENT
1. Appellant/accused Gulam Ahmad Raza has filed present appeal u/sec. 415 (3) BNSS/374 (3) Cr.P.C. thereby challenging judgment of conviction dated 27.04.2023 and order on sentence dated 28.04.2025 passed by Ld. Trial Court in FIR No.224/2010, U/s 420/468/471 r/w Section 120B IPC, Police Jamia Nagar.
2. Appellant/Gulam Ahmad Raza herein was accused before Ld. Trial Court and respondent State was complainant before Ld. Trial Court. In order to avoid confusion, parties will be referred with the same nomenclature with which, they were referred before Ld. Trial Court, in my subsequent paragraphs.
3. Ld. Trial Court record reveal that the complaint was filed by complainant Prof. Masood Alam Proctor Jamia Millia Islamia, who had stated being the Dean, Faculty of Engineering and Technology, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi that an interview committee on 18.06.2010, observed that the photograph on the application form of the candidate namely accused /appellant Gulam Ahmad Raza S/o Mohd. Nurujjuma having roll no.66605 was not matching with that of the candidate who was appearing for the interview. Upon questioning the candidate accepted that he was hired by a person namely Irshad @ Luki having phone no.9718362926 and had paid him Rs.1,000/-. Further, that the deal was settled for Rs.25,000/- and was to CA No.168/2025 PS Jamia Nagar FIR No.224/2010 Gulam Ahmad Raza Vs. State Page No.2 of 41 be paid to him after the final selection for admission to B.Tech.
4. Upon the aforesaid incident, matter was reported to the proctor and upon the aforesaid complaint FIR was registered.
5. After registration of FIR, during investigation, admit card of the accused / appellant having roll no.66605 (form no.30775) was seized which was for B.Tech. Entrance test 2010-11. Specimen signature of Pritam Kumar who had appeared for interview in place of accused / appellant with thumb impression was obtained and his statement was recorded in the presence of complainant Prof. Masood Alam. Subsequently, verification slip no.32 dated 18.06.2010 of accused/appellant Gulam Ahmad Raza, his application form, 10th certificate/mark sheet and 12th certificate, character certificate were seized and the statement of Prof. SS Nabi, Dean, Faculty of Engineering Jamia Millia Islamia was recorded alongwith other witnesses. Thereafter, accused Pritam Kumar was examined and his disclosure statement was recorded and arrested in the present matter and was sent to judicial custody. Subsequently, accused Gulam Ahmad Raza was granted anticipatory bail on 09.12.2010 and formally arrested in the present matter on 26.04.2011.
6. Thereafter, IO tried to collect the original attendance sheet and OMR sheet of the written examination of Roll no.66605 of the accused/appellant which was held on 29.05.2010, but the same could not be provided by the University. Specimen signature of accused Gulam Ahmad Raza and his CA No.168/2025 PS Jamia Nagar FIR No.224/2010 Gulam Ahmad Raza Vs. State Page No.3 of 41 passport size photograph were obtained and sent to FSL for opinion.
7. Subsequently, both accused persons were chargesheeted and sent for trial.
8. Thereafter, FSL report in the present matter was filed through supplementary chargesheet on 27.06.2018.
9. Prosecution had examined 12 witnesses in total. Statement of accused u/sec. 313 CrPC was recorded by Ld. Trial Court on 25.01.2023 in which all the incriminating evidence was put to accused to which he denied all the allegations. Accused/appellant did not lead any defence evidence.
10.After hearing final arguments, impugned judgment was pronounced on 27.04.2023 and accused /appellant Gulam Ahmad Raza was convicted for the offence U/s 420/468/471 IPC and co-accused Pritam Kumar stopped appearing and being a convict was declared proclaimed offender on 20.04.2024. Subsequently, impugned order on sentence was passed only qua appellant Gulam Ahmad Raza on 28.04.2025 vide which appellant has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two months for the offence u/s 420 IPC and fine of Rs.10,000/-, further sentence to simple imprisonment for 3 months for the offence U/s 468 IPC and fine of Rs.10,000/- and also sentenced to simple imprisonment for two months for the offence U/s 471 IPC and fine of Rs.10,000/-. Appellant had already paid fine of Rs.30,000/- before the Ld. Trial Court on 28.04.2025.
CA No.168/2025 PS Jamia Nagar FIR No.224/2010 Gulam Ahmad Raza Vs. State Page No.4 of 41
11.Feeling aggrieved from the impugned judgment dated 27.04.2023 and the impugned order on sentence dated 28.04.2025, the the appellant/accused has preferred the present appeal by taking the following grounds :-
a). That the Ld. Trial Court did not consider and wrongly held guilty to the appellant as the main source i.e. original attendance sheet and OMR sheet of the written examination of roll no. 66605 was not provided by the JMI to link the appellant with the guilt and merely on the basis of surmises held him guilty, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
b). That the Ld. Trial Court did not consider that the IO failed to nab the main culprits namely Irshad @ Lakki through whom alleged convict Pritam Kumar appeared before the interview committee and hence same is the major lapse of prosecution and its benefits goes to accused, hence the judgment and order on sentence is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
c). That the Ld. Trial Court did not consider that the reply of the appellant put before him U/S 313 Cr.P.C. thereby he has deposed that he has filled the B.Tech Form and handed over to Shahid Coaching, who has submitted his form in JMI, but he has not appeared in examination. The said reply strengthens the defense of the appellant that he is innocent and not part of such crime as alleged against him. If JMI would have produce the original attendance sheet and OMR sheet of written examination of Roll No 66605 held on 29.05.2010, then the said attendance sheet speaks in volume and can reach out the actual culprits, but merely on the basis of CA No.168/2025 PS Jamia Nagar FIR No.224/2010 Gulam Ahmad Raza Vs. State Page No.5 of 41 form the appellant has been implicated and also convicted without any iota of admissible evidence.
d). That the Ld. Trial did not consider and wrongly considered the testimony of PW's-who have not deposed against the appellant and merely on the basis of presumption appellant was also convicted, hence needs to be set aside.
12.Ld. Addl. PP for the State have argued that impugned judgment and order on sentence are correctly passed and do not require any interference as the judgment passed by the Ld. Trial Court is well reasoned
13.On the other hand, it has been argued on behalf of Ld. Counsel for accused/appellant that the accused has been wrongly convicted by Ld. Trial Court and there was no evidence available on record to show that he had committed any offence. It has been argued that the testimony of witnesses recorded by the prosecution does not that any offence was committed by the accused. It has further been argued that the investigation in the present matter has not been conducted fairly and IO has not been investigated the role of persons namely Irshad @ Lukki who had allegedly asked the co- accused Pritam Kumar to appear for interview on behalf of accused/appellant. It has also been argued that the accused/appellant was not present when the alleged incident had occurred and that he has been falsely implicated in the present matter and is liable to be acquitted.
CA No.168/2025 PS Jamia Nagar FIR No.224/2010 Gulam Ahmad Raza Vs. State Page No.6 of 41
14.The question which needs adjudication, in present appeal, is whether Ld. Trial Court rightly convicted the accused/appellant Gulam Ahmad Raza for the offence punishable U/Sec. 420/468/471 IPC r/w Section 120B IPC or not ?
15.Before adverting to the evidence of prosecution, I must mention here, the observations of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case titled as Satish Bombaiya Vs. State, 1991 JCC 6147, had observed:
"While appreciating the evidence of a witness, approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is formed then undoubtedly it is necessary for the court to scrutinize the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness and whether earlier evaluation of evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of behalf. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hyper technical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here and there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the investigating officer not going to the root of the matter, would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole. The main thing to be seen is, whether those inconsistencies go to the root of the matter or pertained to the insignificant aspects thereof. In the former case, the defence may be justified in seeking advantage of the inconsistencies in the evidence. In the latter, however no such benefit may CA No.168/2025 PS Jamia Nagar FIR No.224/2010 Gulam Ahmad Raza Vs. State Page No.7 of 41 be available to it. That is a salutary method of appreciation of evidence in criminal cases."
16.I have heard Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Ld. Counsel for accused/appellant in the present matter and have carefully gone through the trial court record and also the evidence placed on record by the prosecution.
17. Briefly, in the present matter, accused/appellant faced trial since the year 2010 for the offence U/s 420/468/471/120B IPC since the co-accused Pritam Kumar (since declared absconder) had appeared for an interview at Jamia Millia University on behalf of accused/appellant for admission in to B.Tech. The testimonies led by the prosecution before Ld. Trial Court, are mentioned in brief :-
18.PW1 Prof. Masood Alam being the complainant deposed that on 18.06.2010 an interview for B.Tech. Entrance exam was conducted at Jamia Millia Islamia University and he was the member in the interview board. He had forms of all the candidates which contain one photograph of the candidate and at that time candidate Gulam Ahmad Raza appeared before the committee, however, the person who had appeared did not match with the photograph on the form and it was found that the candidate was impersonating and his real name was Pritam Kumar. Thereafter, he gave his complaint Ex.PW1/A.
19.During cross examination PW1 deposed that the interview was conducted CA No.168/2025 PS Jamia Nagar FIR No.224/2010 Gulam Ahmad Raza Vs. State Page No.8 of 41 from 10 am alongwith other members of the interview committee namely Dean Professor Nabi, Professor Sufian, Professor Nasim, Professor Akhtar and himself and that he had give his statement to the police on 18.06.2010.
20.PW2 S.S. Nabi deposed that he was the Professor, Dean, Faculty of Engineering, Jamia Millia Islamia and that interview was conducted. However, he could not identify the accused and did not support the story of prosecution.
21.PW3 Professor Khalid Moin deposed that he was working as Professor at the University and on 18.06.2010 he was the convener of the admission committee for B.Tech. Entrance exam and the photograph on the admission form of the candidate namely Gulam Ahmad Raza did not match with the person who appeared against the aforesaid candidate and thereafter, co- accused Pritam Kumar was found impersonating. Thereafter, the matter was informed to Proctor and complaint was filed and he identified the exhibited document, like application form, hall ticket for interview, which were Ex.PW3/A and Ex.PW3/B respectively and verification slip of candidate Gulam Ahmad Raza which was Ex.PW3/C. He also identified the confession statement given by candidate Pritam Kumar which was Ex.PW3/D the witness did not identify the accused persons in the present matter.
22.During cross examination PW3 deposed that he did not remember the exact date of the incident and there were around 8 members in the committee and CA No.168/2025 PS Jamia Nagar FIR No.224/2010 Gulam Ahmad Raza Vs. State Page No.9 of 41 he admitted that the application form remained in the custody of the university and that the photograph on the application form Ex.PW3/A and admit card Ex.PW3/B were of the same person and that the verification slip Ex.PW3/C did not contain the photograph of any candidate. He did not remember if they had taken any ID proof of the person Pritam Kumar who had appeared for the interview on behalf of accused Gulam Ahmad Raza.
23. PW-4 Syed Akhtar Hussain deposed on the lines of PW1 and PW3. He further deposed that accused Pritam Kumar had informed him that he was hired by one person namely Irshad @ Lucky to appear in the aforesaid interview and had given a written statement to the dean in this regard.
24.During cross examination PW4 deposed that he did not remember as to how many times his statement was recorded in the present matter and he did not remember the number of candidate appeared in the interview on that day and that accused Pritam Kumar had given his confession to the Dean in his presence and admitted that the Ex.PW3/D which was confession statement of Pritam Kumar was not signed by the Dean. He further admitted that apart from the photograph on the form Ex.PW3/D there was no other document with the interview committee to identify the accused.
25.PW-5 Syed Nasim Ahmed also deposed on the lines of PW1, PW3 and PW4 but did not identify accused Pritam Kumar during his testimony.
CA No.168/2025 PS Jamia Nagar FIR No.224/2010 Gulam Ahmad Raza Vs. State Page No.10 of 41
26.During cross examination PW5 deposed that he did not remember as to how many times his statement was recorded by police or as to how many candidates had appeared for the interview. He further deposed that accused Pritam Kumar had give his confession statement to Dean in his presence and in the presence of other member of the board and the same was in the hand writing of Pritam Kumar and he did not remember if he had counter sign the same. Further, apart from the photograph on the form Ex.PW3/D there was no other document with the interview committee to identify the accused. He admitted that the photograph on document Ex.PW3/A and Ex.PW3/B were of the same person. Further, during cross examination on behalf of accused Gulam Ahmad Raza, PW5 deposed he was issued the appointment letter to the member of interview board and he had not handed over the same to the police.
27.PW6 Professor M M Sufyan Beg and PW7 Professor A Q Ansari also deposed on the lines of PW1, PW3, PW4 and PW5. The witnesses did not identify accused Pritam Kumar in the present matter. Subsequently, during cross examination on behalf of Ld. APP for State the witness admitted that it was accused Pritam who had told them regarding the fact that he was hired by one person namely Irshad for a total amount of Rs.25000/- and he had received Rs.1,000/- as advance to appear in the interview and the final amount shall be paid upon final selection. Further, it was correct that it was accused Pritam Kumar who was signed on hall ticket as Gulam Ahmad Raza and thereafter he was handed over to the police.
CA No.168/2025 PS Jamia Nagar FIR No.224/2010 Gulam Ahmad Raza Vs. State Page No.11 of 41
28.During cross examination PW6 & PW7 admitted that they could not identify the accused due to lapse of time.
29.PW8 Professor M Shakil deposed that he was posted as Dean and did not remember exact date of incident and that in the year 2016 upon being enquired about the documents he inform the police department through a letter that documents were not available and the letter was Ex.PW8/A.
30.PW9 Retd. Inspt. Raj Kumar deposed that on 15.09.2015 upon receiving the case file he conducted the investigation and tried to obtain the original papers in the present matter pertaining to the exam conducted but the same could not be received. Further, he had tried to obtain the CDR of co- accused namely Irshad @ Lucky and even the same could not be found. Thereafter, he had obtained the photographs and thumb impression of accused Gulam Ahmad Raza and sent to FSL.
31.PW10 ASI Brijesh Kumar deposed that on 18.06.2010 after the case was marked to him he arrested accused Pritam Kumar vide Ex.PW10/A and conducted his personal search vide Ex.PW10/B and recorded his disclosure statement vide Ex.PW10/C
32.PW11 ASI Rukmana Ram deposed that on 26.04.2011 accused Appellant Gulam Ahmad Raza was arrested vide Ex.PW11/A and his disclosure statement was recorded and thereafter he was released on bail.
CA No.168/2025 PS Jamia Nagar FIR No.224/2010 Gulam Ahmad Raza Vs. State Page No.12 of 41
33.PW12 SI Bani Singh deposed that on 18.06.2010 he was posted as PS Jamia Nagar and at that time, proctor of J M I University alognwith official of interview committee and accused Pritam came to the police station and gave complaint Ex.PW1/A and thereafter FIR was registered. He interrogated the accused Pritam and arrested him vide Ex.PW10/A and conducted personal search Ex.PW10/B and recorded his disclosure statement vide Ex.PW10/C and at that time proctor Maqsood Ahmed produced certain document pertaining to present matter which was seized vide Ex.PW12/A. Accused Gulam Ahmad Raza was formally arrested in the present matter.
34.During cross examination PW12 deposed that accused Gulam Ahmad Raza joined the investigation of the present matter, and thereafter, he recorded his disclosure statement.
THE OFFENCE
35.The offence U/s 419 IPC which states as follows :-
"419. Punishment for cheating by personation - Whoever cheats by personation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
36.The law pertaining to Section 420 IPC is discussed herein below. Section 420 IPC states that:-
CA No.168/2025 PS Jamia Nagar FIR No.224/2010 Gulam Ahmad Raza Vs. State Page No.13 of 41
420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.
Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the 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.
37.The law pertaining to cheating has been discussed by higher echelon of judicial system and the same is discussed below :-
38.In the case of A.M. Mohan Vs. State 2024 SCC Online SC 339 , it has been held that :-
20. Cheating is an essential ingredient for an act to constitute an offence under Section 420."
12. A similar view has been taken by this Court in the cases of Archana Rana v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another4, Deepak Gaba and Others v. State of UP and Another5 and Mariam Fasihuddin and Another v. State by Adugodi Police Station and Another.
13. It could thus be seen that for attracting the provision of Section 420 of IPC, the FIR/complaint must show that the ingredients of Section 415 of IPC are made out and the person cheated must have been dishonestly induced to deliver the property to any person; or to make, alter or destroy valuable security or CA No.168/2025 PS Jamia Nagar FIR No.224/2010 Gulam Ahmad Raza Vs. State Page No.14 of 41 anything signed or sealed and capable of being converted into valuable security. In other words, for attracting the provisions of Section 420 of IPC, it must be shown that the FIR/complaint discloses:
(i) the deception of any person;
(ii) fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person to deliver any property to any person; and
(iii) dishonest intention of the accused at the time of making the inducement.
14. The averments with regard to the present appellant as have been found in the FIR is as under:
"At the instance of the said Lakshmanan (accused No.1), I (complainant) paid directly Rs.
20,00,000/- to one Mohan (appellant-accused No.
3) and the said Lakshmanan (accused No.1) transferred the remaining sale consideration of over 18 odd crores to Mohan for the purchase of his lands at Sunguvarchatram. But suppressed the execution of sale deed dated 03.02.2017 by the appellant/accused No.3."
39. Further, in the case of Wolfgang Reim & Ors. Vs. State 2012 SCC Online Delhi 3341, it has been held that :-
31. So far as Sections 417, 419 and 420 IPC are concerned, there must be dishonest intention at the inception of delivery or retention of property is the gist of the offence and in absence thereof there can be no offence of cheating. The Hon'ble CA No.168/2025 PS Jamia Nagar FIR No.224/2010 Gulam Ahmad Raza Vs. State Page No.15 of 41 Supreme Court has held in Sukhdeo Jha Utpal vs. The State of Bihar; AIR 1957 SC 466 as under :-
"On charge of cheating, the fact that the accused made a false representation with the knowledge, that it was false and that he had a dishonest intention to induce the person deceived to part with his property, at the very time when he made a false representation, is an essential ingredient of the offence. On such a charge, the burden lies on the prosecution to prove affirmatively, not only that the accused has made a false representation, but also he made it with a dishonest intention, knowing that the representation he was making was false."
32. It was further held by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India in S.W. Palanitkar vs. State of Bihar; (2002) 1 SCC 241 as under:-
"........In order to constitute an offence of cheating, the intention to deceive should be in existence at the time when the inducement was made. it is necessary to show that a person had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise, to say that he committed an act of cheating. A mere failure to keep up promise subsequently cannot be presumed as an act leading to cheating."
33. In the present case, there is nothing on record to show that the petitioners knowingly made any false representation, much less dishonestly or fraudulently any representation. Therefore, one of CA No.168/2025 PS Jamia Nagar FIR No.224/2010 Gulam Ahmad Raza Vs. State Page No.16 of 41 basic ingredients of Sec 415 or 420 IPC is not made out.
\34. Further, a person cannot be charged with the offence of cheating and criminal breach of trust simultaneously for the same transaction because for the offence of cheating, it is a prerequisite that dishonest intention must exist at the inception of any transaction whereas in case of criminal breach of trust, there must exist a relationship between the parties whereby one party entrusts another with property as per law, therefore, for commission of criminal breach of trust, the dishonest intention comes later, i.e, after obtaining dominion over the property by the accused person whereas for commission of cheating, dishonest intention of the accused has to be present at the inception of the transaction."
40. Sec. 467 IPC states that :-
"Forgery of valuable security, will etc. Whoever forges a document which purports to be a valuable security or a will, or an authority to adopt a son, or which purports to give authority to any person to make or transfer any valuable security, or to receive the principal, interest or dividends thereon, or to receive or deliver any money, movable property, or valuable security, or any document purporting to be an acquittance or receipt acknowledging the payment of money, or an CA No.168/2025 PS Jamia Nagar FIR No.224/2010 Gulam Ahmad Raza Vs. State Page No.17 of 41 acquittance or receipt for the delivery of any movable property or valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."
41. Sec. 468 IPC states that :-
"Forgery for purpose of cheating -
Whoever commits forgery, intending that the document or electronic record1 forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."
42. Sec. 471 IPC states that :-
"Using as genuine a forged document :-
Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document."
43. The offence u/sec. 467 IPC is an aggravated form of the preceding section. The forged document must be one of those mentioned in the section. Sec. 468 IPC punishes forgery committed for the purpose of cheating. To bring a document within the definition of a forged document, it is required firstly to be shown that the false document was covered u/sec.
CA No.168/2025 PS Jamia Nagar FIR No.224/2010 Gulam Ahmad Raza Vs. State Page No.18 of 41 464 IPC and even mere proving of making a false document without establishing the intention of the maker is not sufficient to constitute an offence and unless the forgery of a document is proved, it cannot be said that the said forged document is used as genuine one. Therefore, to constitute an offence u/sec. 471 IPC, first an offence u/sec. 468 IPC has be established. Mere preparation of document under once own signature and writings by making false averments therein does not fall within the definition of forgery. The ingredient of the offence u/sec. 468 IPC is committing of forgery with a particular intent, that intent being that the document forged should be used for the purpose of cheating. The Section does not require that accused should actually commit the offence of cheating. Forgery is usually an act done in furtherance of some other criminal design. What is material is the intention or purpose of the offender in committing forgery.
44. To constitute an offence u/sec. 468 IPC, the prosecution is required to establish that the accused had committed forgery and that he did it with an intention that the document forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating. The term forged document is defined u/sec. 470 IPC. Sec. 471 IPC states that whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document or electronic record which he knows or has reason to believe to be forged shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document. Therefore, what this section requires is a use as genuine of any document which is known or believed to be forged document. The condition precedent for an offence u/sec. 467 and sec. 471 IPC is forgery. The condition precedent for forgery is making a false document. Therefore, CA No.168/2025 PS Jamia Nagar FIR No.224/2010 Gulam Ahmad Raza Vs. State Page No.19 of 41 sec. 471 IPC requires to use the forged document as genuine. To bring home, sec. 471 IPC user of a forged document as genuine, inter-alia must be made fraudulently and dishonestly. While deceit is an important ingredient of the definition of the word 'fraudulently' it is not an ingredient of the definition of the word 'dishonestly' which involves a pecuniary or economic gain or loss, while the word 'fraudulently' by construction excludes that element. Further, it is required that the accused knew or had good reason to believe that it was not the signature of the person by whom the document is set to have been written.
45. The law pertaining to the aforementioned offences u/sec. 464/467/468/471 IPC is discussed in my subsequent paragraphs, of this judgment.
46. It has been held in the case of Mohd. Ibrahim & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar, 2009 8 SCC 751 para 9 to 22, that :-
"9. The term "forgery" used in these two sections is defined in section
463. Whoever makes any false documents with intent to cause damage or injury to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that the fraud may be committed, commits forgery. Section 464 defining "making a false document" is extracted below :
CA No.168/2025 PS Jamia Nagar FIR No.224/2010 Gulam Ahmad Raza Vs. State Page No.20 of 41 "464. Making a false document.--A person is said to make a false document or false electronic record---
First.--Who dishonestly or fraudulently -
(a) makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document;
(b) makes or transmits any electronic record or part of any electronic record;
(c) affixes any digital signature on any electronic record;
(d) makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or the authenticity of the digital signature, with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or a part of document, electronic record or digital signature was made, signed, sealed, executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed, executed or affixed; or Secondly.-- Who, without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document or an electronic record in any material part thereof, after it has been made, executed or affixed with digital signature either by himself or by any other person, whether such person be living or dead at the time of such alternation; or Thirdly.--Who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document or an electronic record or to affix his digital signature on any electronic record knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot, or that by reason of deception practised upon CA No.168/2025 PS Jamia Nagar FIR No.224/2010 Gulam Ahmad Raza Vs. State Page No.21 of 41 him, he does not know the contents of the document or electronic record or the nature of the alteration.
Explanation 1 - A man's signature of his own name may amount to forgery.
Explanation 2 - The making of a false document in the name of a fictitious person, intending it to be believed that the document was made by a real person, or in the name of a deceased person, intending it to be believed that the document was made by the person in his lifetime, may amount to forgery.
[Note: The words `digital signature' wherever it occurs were substituted by the words `electronic signature' by Amendment Act 10 of 2009]."
The condition precedent for an offence under sections 467 and 471 is forgery. The condition precedent for forgery is making a false document (or false electronic record or part thereof). This case does not relate to any false electronic record. Therefore, the question is whether the first accused, in executing and registering the two sale deeds purporting to sell a property (even if it is assumed that it did not belong to him), can be said to have made and executed false documents, in collusion with the other accused.
10. An analysis of section 464 of Penal Code shows that it divides false documents into three categories:
10.1) 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 CA No.168/2025 PS Jamia Nagar FIR No.224/2010 Gulam Ahmad Raza Vs. State Page No.22 of 41 authority of some other person, by whom or by whose authority he knows it was not made or executed.
10.2) 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.
10.3) 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.
11. In short, a person is said to have made a `false document', if (i) he made or executed a document claiming to be someone else or authorised by someone else; or (ii) he altered or tampered a document; or (iii) he obtained a document by practicing deception, or from a person not in control of his senses.
12. The sale deeds executed by first appellant, clearly and obviously do not fall under the second and third categories of `false documents'. It therefore remains to be seen whether the claim of the complainant that the execution of sale deeds by the first accused, who was in no way connected with the land, amounted to committing forgery of the documents with the intention of taking possession of complainant's land (and that accused 2 to 5 as the purchaser, witness, scribe and stamp vendor colluded with first accused in execution and registration CA No.168/2025 PS Jamia Nagar FIR No.224/2010 Gulam Ahmad Raza Vs. State Page No.23 of 41 of the said sale deeds) would bring the case under the first category. There is a fundamental difference between a person executing a sale deed claiming that the property conveyed is his property, and a person executing a sale deed by impersonating the owner or falsely claiming to be authorised or empowered by the owner, to execute the deed on owner's behalf. When a person executes a document conveying a property describing it as his, there are two possibilities. The first is that he bonafide believes that the property actually belongs to him. The second is that he may be dishonestly or fraudulently claiming it to be his even though he knows that it is not his property.
But to fall under first category of `false documents', it is not sufficient that a document has been made or executed dishonestly or fraudulently. There is a further requirement that it should have been made with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document was made or executed by, or by the authority of a person, by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made or executed. When a document is executed by a person claiming a property which is not his, he is not claiming that he is someone else nor is he claiming that he is authorised by someone else. Therefore, execution of such document (purporting to convey some property of which he is not the owner) is not execution of a false document as defined under section 464 of the Code. If what is executed is not a false document, there is no forgery. If there is no forgery, then neither section 467 nor section 471 of the Code are attracted.
Section 420 IPC CA No.168/2025 PS Jamia Nagar FIR No.224/2010 Gulam Ahmad Raza Vs. State Page No.24 of 41
13. Let us now examine whether the ingredients of an offence of cheating are made out. The essential ingredients of the offence of "cheating" 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 deceived; 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 (or anything signed or sealed and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security).
14. When a sale deed is executed conveying a property claiming ownership thereto, it may be possible for the purchaser under such sale deed, to allege that the vendor has cheated him by making a false representation of ownership and fraudulently induced him to part with the sale consideration. But in this case the complaint is not by the purchaser. On the other hand, the purchaser is made a co-accused. It is not the case of the complainant that any of the accused tried to deceive him either by making a false or misleading representation or by any other action or omission, nor is it his case that they offered him any fraudulent or dishonest inducement to CA No.168/2025 PS Jamia Nagar FIR No.224/2010 Gulam Ahmad Raza Vs. State Page No.25 of 41 deliver any property or to consent to the retention thereof by any person or to intentionally induce him to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived. Nor did the complainant allege that the first appellant pretended to be the complainant while executing the sale deeds. Therefore, it cannot be said that the first accused by the act of executing sale deeds in favour of the second accused or the second accused by reason of being the purchaser, or the third, fourth and fifth accused, by reason of being the witness, scribe and stamp vendor in regard to the sale deeds, deceived the complainant in any manner. As the ingredients of cheating as stated in section 415 are not found, it cannot be said that there was an offence punishable under sections 417, 418, 419 or 420 of the Code.
A clarification
15. When we say that execution of a sale deed by a person, purporting to convey a property which is not his, as his property, is not making a false document and therefore not forgery, we should not be understood as holding that such an act can never be a criminal offence. If a person sells a property knowing that it does not belong to him, and thereby defrauds the person who purchased the property, the person defrauded, that is the purchaser, may complain that the vendor committed the fraudulent act of cheating. But a third party who is not the purchaser under the deed may not be able to make such complaint. The term `fraud' is not defined in the Code. The dictionary definition of `fraud' is "deliberate deception, treachery or cheating intended to gain advantage". Section 17 of the Contract Act, 1872 defines `fraud' with reference to a party to a CA No.168/2025 PS Jamia Nagar FIR No.224/2010 Gulam Ahmad Raza Vs. State Page No.26 of 41 contract. In Dr. Vimla vs. Delhi Administration - AIR 1963 SC 1572, this 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 than 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."
The above definition was in essence reiterated in State of UP vs. Ranjit Singh - 1999 (2) SCC 617.
16. The Penal Code however defines `fraudulently', an adjective form of the word `fraud', in section 25, as follows : "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 :
"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". To `defraud' or do something fraudulently is not by itself made an offence under the Penal Code, but various acts when done fraudulently (or fraudulently and dishonestly) are made offences. These include:
CA No.168/2025 PS Jamia Nagar FIR No.224/2010 Gulam Ahmad Raza Vs. State Page No.27 of 41
(i) Fraudulent removal or concealment of property (sec.206, 421, 424)
(ii) Fraudulent claim to property to prevent seizure (sec.
207).
(iii) Fraudulent suffering or obtaining a decree (sec.
208 and 210)
(iv) Fraudulent possession/delivery of counterfeit coin (sec.239, 240, 242 and 243).
(v) Fraudulent alteration/diminishing weight of coin (sec. 246 to 253)
(vi) Fraudulent acts relating to stamps (sec. 261-261)
(vii) Fraudulent use of false instruments/weight/measure (sec.264 to 266)
(viii) Cheating (sec. 415 to 420)
(ix) Fraudulent prevention of debt being available to creditors (sec. 422).
(x) Fraudulent execution of deed of transfer containing false statement of consideration (sec. 423).
(xi) Forgery making or executing a false document (sec. 463 to 471 and 474)
(xii) Fraudulent cancellation/destruction of valuable security etc.(sec. 477)
(xiii) Fraudulently going through marriage ceremony (sec.496).
CA No.168/2025 PS Jamia Nagar FIR No.224/2010 Gulam Ahmad Raza Vs. State Page No.28 of 41 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. Section 504 of Penal Code
17. The allegations in the complaint do not also made out the ingredients of an offence under section 504 of the Penal Code. Section 504 refers to intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace. The allegation in the complainant is that when he enquired with accused 1 and 2 about the sale deeds, they asserted that they will obtain possession of land under the sale deeds and he can do whatever he wants. The statement attributed to appellants 1 and 2, it cannot be said to amount to an "insult with intent to provoke breach of peace". The statement attributed to accused, even if it was true, was merely a statement referring to the consequence of execution of the sale deeds by first appellant in favour of the second appellant.
Conclusion
18. The averments in the complaint if assumed to be true, do not make out any offence under sections 420, 467, 471 and 504 of the Code, but may technically show the ingredients of offences of wrongful restraint under section 341 and causing hurt under section 323 of IPC.
19. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is allowed in part. The order of the High Court is set aside. The order dated 14.12.2005 of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate is quashed insofar as offences under sections 420, 467, 471 and 504 IPC. Consequently, the charges CA No.168/2025 PS Jamia Nagar FIR No.224/2010 Gulam Ahmad Raza Vs. State Page No.29 of 41 framed under those sections are also quashed. The order dated 14.12.2005 and the charges in so far as the offence under sections 323 and 341 IPC are left undisturbed. The appeal is allowed in part accordingly."
47. It has been held in the case of Sheila Sebastian Vs. R. Jawaharraj & Anr. 2018 7 SCC 581, para 17 to 30, wherein it has been held that :-
19. A close scrutiny of the aforesaid provisions makes it clear that, Section 463 defines the offence of forgery, while Section 464 substantiates the same by providing an answer as to when a false document could be said to have been made for the purpose of committing an offence of forgery under Section 463, IPC. Therefore, we can safely deduce that Section 464 defines one of the ingredients of forgery i.e., making of a false document. Further, Section 465 provides punishment for the commission of the offence of forgery. In order to sustain a conviction under Section 465, first it has to be proved that forgery was committed under Section 463, implying that ingredients under Section 464 should also be satisfied. Therefore unless and untill ingredients under Section 463 are satisfied a person cannot be convicted under Section 465 by solely relying on the ingredients of Section 464, as the offence of forgery would remain incomplete
20. The key to unfold the present dispute lies in understanding Explanation 2 as given in Section 464 of IPC. As Collin J., puts it precisely in Dickins v. Gill, (1896) 2 QB 310, a case dealing with the possession and making of fictitious stamp wherein he stated that "to make", in itself involves conscious act on the part of the CA No.168/2025 PS Jamia Nagar FIR No.224/2010 Gulam Ahmad Raza Vs. State Page No.30 of 41 maker. Therefore, an offence of forgery cannot lie against a person who has not created it or signed it.
21. It is observed in the case Md. Ibrahim and Ors. vs. State of Bihar and Anr., (2009) 8 SCC 751 that-
"a person is said to have made a `false document', if
(i) he made or executed a document claiming to be someone else or authorised by someone else; or
(ii) he altered or tampered a document; or
(iii) he obtained a document by practicing deception, or from a person not in control of his senses."
22. In Md. Ibrahim (supra), this Court had the occasion to examine forgery of a document purporting to be a valuable security (Section 467, IPC) and using of forged document as genuine (Section 471, IPC). While considering the basic ingredients of both the offences,this Court observed that to attract the offence of forgery as defined under Section 463, IPC depends upon creation of a document as defined under Section 464, IPC. It is further observed that mere execution of a sale deed by claiming that property being sold was executant's property, did not amount to commission of offences punishable under Sections 467 and 471, IPC even if title of property did not vest in the executant.
23. The Court in Md. Ibrahim (supra) observed that:
"There is a fundamental difference between a person executing a sale deed claiming that the property conveyed is his property, and a person executing a sale deed by impersonating the owner or falsely claiming to be authorised or empowered by the owner, to execute the CA No.168/2025 PS Jamia Nagar FIR No.224/2010 Gulam Ahmad Raza Vs. State Page No.31 of 41 deed on owner's behalf. When a person executes a document conveying a property describing it as his, there are two possibilities. The first is that he bona fide believes that the property actually belongs to him. The second is that he may be dishonestly or fraudulently claiming it to be his even though he knows that it is not his property. But to fall under first category of `false documents', it is not sufficient that a document has been made or executed dishonestly or fraudulently. There is a further requirement that it should have been made with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document was made or executed by, or by the authority of a person, by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made or executed.
When a document is executed by a person claiming a property which is not his, he is not claiming that he is someone else nor is he claiming that he is authorised by someone else. Therefore, execution of such document (purporting to convey some property of which he is not the owner) is not execution of a false document as defined under Section 464 of the Code. If what is executed is not a false document, there is no forgery. If there is no forgery, then neither Section 467 nor Section 471 of the Code are attracted."
24. In Mir Nagvi Askari vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2009) 15 SCC 643, this Court, after analysing the facts of that case, came to observe as follows:
"A person is said to make a false document or record if he satisfies one of the three conditions as noticed CA No.168/2025 PS Jamia Nagar FIR No.224/2010 Gulam Ahmad Raza Vs. State Page No.32 of 41 hereinbefore and provided for under the said section. The first condition being that the document has been falsified with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document has been made by a person, by whom the person falsifying the document knows that it was not made. Clearly the documents in question in the present case, even if it be assumed to have been made dishonestly or fraudulently, had not been made with the intention of causing it to be believed that they were made by or under the authority of someone else.
The second criteria of the section deals with a case where a person without lawful authority alters a document after it has been made. There has been no allegation of alteration of the voucher in question after they have been made. Therefore, in our opinion the second criteria of the said section is also not applicable to the present case.
The third and final condition of Section 464 deals with a document, signed by a person who due to his mental capacity does not know the contents of the documents which were made i.e. because of intoxication or unsoundness of mind, etc. Such is also not the case before us. Indisputably therefore the accused before us could not have been convicted with the making of a false document.
25. Keeping in view the strict interpretation of penal statute i.e., referring to rule of interpretation wherein natural inferences are preferred, we observe that a charge of forgery cannot be imposed on a person who is not the maker of the same. As held in plethora of cases, making of a document is different than causing it to be made. As CA No.168/2025 PS Jamia Nagar FIR No.224/2010 Gulam Ahmad Raza Vs. State Page No.33 of 41 Explanation 2 to Section 464 further clarifies that, for constituting an offence under Section 464 it is imperative that a false document is made and the accused person is the maker of the same, otherwise the accused person is not liable for the offence of forgery.
26. The definition of "false document" is a part of the definition of "forgery". Both must be read together. 'Forgery' and 'Fraud' are essentially matters of evidence which could be proved as a fact by direct evidence or by inferences drawn from proved facts. In the case in hand, there is no finding recorded by the trial Court that the respondents have made any false document or part of the document/record to execute mortgage deed under the guise of that 'false document'. Hence, neither respondent no.1 nor respondent no.2 can be held as makers of the forged documents. It is the imposter who can be said to have made the false document by committing forgery. In such an event the trial court as well as appellate court misguided themselves by convicting the accused. Therefore, the High Court has rightly acquitted the accused based on the settled legal position and we find no reason to interfere with the same.
27. A reasonable doubt has already been thoroughly explained in the case of Latesh @ Dadu Baburao Karlekar Versus The State of Maharashtra, (2018) 3 SCC 66 wherein 'reasonable doubt' has been enunciated by this Court as "a mean between excessive caution and excessive indifference to a doubt, further it has been elaborated that reasonable doubt must be a practical one and not an abstract theoretical hypothesis." In this case at hand, the imposter has not been found or investigated into by the concerned officer. Nothing has been spilled CA No.168/2025 PS Jamia Nagar FIR No.224/2010 Gulam Ahmad Raza Vs. State Page No.34 of 41 on the relationship between the imposter and respondent no.1. Law is well settled with regard to the fact that however strong the suspicion may be, it cannot take the place of proof. Strong suspicion, coincidence, grave doubt cannot take the place of proof. Always a duty is cast upon the Courts to ensure that suspicion does not take place of the legal proof. In this case, the trial Court as well as the appellate Court carried away by the fact that accused is the beneficiary or the executant of the mortgage deed, where the prosecution miserably failed to prove the first transaction i.e PoA as a fraudulent and forged transaction. The standard of proof in a criminal trial is proof beyond reasonable doubt because the right to personal liberty of a citizen can never be taken away by the standard of preponderance of probability.
28. This case on hand is a classic example of poor prosecution and shabby investigation which resulted in the acquittal of the accused. The Investigating Officer is expected to be diligent while discharging his duties. He has to be fair, transparent and his only endeavour should be to find out the truth. The Investigating Officer has not even taken bare minimum care to find out the whereabouts of the imposter who executed the PoA. The evidence on record clearly reveals that PoA was not executed by the complainant and the beneficiary is the accused, still the accused could not be convicted. The latches in the lopsided investigation goes to the root of the matter and fatal to the case of prosecution. If this is the coordination between the prosecution and the investigating agency, every criminal case tend to end up in acquittal. In the process, the common man will lose confidence on the criminal justice delivery system, which CA No.168/2025 PS Jamia Nagar FIR No.224/2010 Gulam Ahmad Raza Vs. State Page No.35 of 41 is not a good symptom. It is the duty of the investigation, prosecution as well as the Courts to ensure that full and material facts and evidence are brought on record, so that there is no scope for miscarriage of justice.
29. Although we acknowledge the appellant's plight who has suffered due to alleged acts of forgery, but we are not able to appreciate the appellant's contentions as a penal statute cannot be expanded by using implications. Section 464 of the IPC makes it clear that only the one who makes a false document can be held liable under the aforesaid provision. It must be borne in mind that, where there exists no ambiguity, there lies no scope for interpretation. The contentions of the appellant are contrary to the provision and contrary to the settled law. The prosecution could not succeed to prove the offence of forgery by adducing cogent and reliable evidence. Apart from that, it is not as though the appellant is remediless. She has a common law remedy of instituting a suit challenging the validity and binding nature of the mortgage deed and it is brought to our notice that already the competent Civil Court has cancelled the mortgage deed and the appellant got back the property.
30. In light of the above discussion, we find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the High Court, resultantly appeals stand dismissed being devoid of merits."\ DECISION
48. In the present matter, accused/appellant has been charged for the offence U/s 420/468/471/120B IPC. To prove the offence against the CA No.168/2025 PS Jamia Nagar FIR No.224/2010 Gulam Ahmad Raza Vs. State Page No.36 of 41 accused, prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses. Since, the accused/appellant by the Ld. Trial Court was charged, that on 18.06.2010 he having common intention with co accused Pritam Kumar had fraudulently and with dishonest intention induced the proctor of JMI University and that he made appear co-accused Pritam Kumar in his place for the interview of selection for course of B.Tech. 2010-11 and that accused Pritam Kumar signed on the verification slip on behalf of accused/appellant Gulam Ahmad Raza by impersonating him. To prove the aforesaid offence against the accused, prosecution relied upon the testimony of twelve witnesses and also placed on record the documents seized during investigation which were the disclosure statement of Pritam Kumar, letter from the Dean of the University dated 25.04.2016, disclosure statement of accused/appellant Gulam Ahmad Raza, photocopy of documents pertaining to the exam conducted and FSL report pertaining to the signatures of accused/appellant on hall ticket for entrance test 2010-11, verification slip for interview for B.Tech. Admission 2010 dated 18.06.2010, application form for admission to the University having form no.37705 for the year 2010-11, copy of mark sheet and certificate of high school and class 10th of the appellant/accused and the character certificate issued to the appellant and also the specimen signature of accused Pritam Kumar. The FSL report was annexed as supplementary chargesheet, however, during examination of witnesses, the witness pertaining to FSL report was never summoned by the trial court and the report was not exhibited or relied upon by the Ld. Trial Court during trial or when the impugned judgment was finalized. The Ld. Trial Court through mentions CA No.168/2025 PS Jamia Nagar FIR No.224/2010 Gulam Ahmad Raza Vs. State Page No.37 of 41 regarding the FSL report and para 44 of the impugned judgment, however, does not mention whether the same was exhibited, marked or relied upon by the prosecution. In the present matter, the prima facie allegations against the accused/appellant is that he had sought admission in B.Tech. Court in the year 2010-11 at Jamia Millia Islamia University and at the time of interview some other person namely co-accused Pritam Kumar appeared on behalf of him and therefore, committed the offence, U/s 420/468/471 r/w Section 120 B IPC. To constitute an offence U/s 120 B IPC it is required that two persons must conspire with each other to commit an offence and the factum of conspiracy should be extablish primarily for commission of offence. In the present matter, the prosecution did not even whisper regarding the manner in which both the accused persons namely Gulam Ahmad Raza and Pritam Kumar conspired for the offence as the disclosure statement of Pritam Kumar also did not mention that he had met accused/appellant Gulam Ahmad Raza for the said offence. In fact accused/Pritam Kumar in his Disclosure statement Ex.PW10/C has mentioned name of another person namely Irshad who he befriended and it was Irshad who had offered an amount of Rs.2500/- to sit in the written exam and that he sat for the same on behalf of Gulam Ahmad Raza but he was not caught and therefore, on 18.06.2010 on the same roll number of Gulam Ahmad Raza he appeared for interview and signed on the verification slip and was caught and complaint was filed. The aforesaid person namely Irshad was not investigated by the prosecution. However, the appellant/accused in the present matter was prosecuted and his disclosure statement was recorded which was Ex.PW11/B. It is no where in CA No.168/2025 PS Jamia Nagar FIR No.224/2010 Gulam Ahmad Raza Vs. State Page No.38 of 41 the disclosure statement of any of the accused or the appellant that it was them who had conspired to commit the offence. Therefore, as far as the offence U/s 120 B IPC is concerned the same was not proved by the prosecution by placing any cogent evidence on record and therefore, no offence U/s 120 B IPC was made out against the appellant/accused Gulam Ahmad Raza.
49. The accused/appellant Gulam Ahmad Raza has also been charged for the offences punishable U/s 468/467/468/471 IPC. However, interestingly, the aforesaid allegations are also not substantiated by any document on record that the accused/appellant had forged any document. In fact it is the case of the prosecution that all the document pertaining to the appearance of the accused in the written exam could never be verified or obtained from the university as they were not available. Further, the documents placed on record which were sent to FSL were never proved by the prosecution by examining any witness and in fact the FSL report filed by the prosecution was not analyzed as the document Ex.PW3/A and Ex.PW3/B which were the application form for the admission and the hall ticket for entrance bears signature of appellant/accused and the verification slip Ex.PW3/C as per the FSL report at point Q3 was bearing the signature of the appellant/accused Gulam Ahmad Raza and matched with the specimen signature of the appellant and therefore the document Ex.PW3/A, Ex.PW3/B and Ex.PW3/C all had borne the signature of the accused/appellant and only the thumb impression on Ex.PW3/C was stated CA No.168/2025 PS Jamia Nagar FIR No.224/2010 Gulam Ahmad Raza Vs. State Page No.39 of 41 to be of some other person and not of appellant Gulam Ahmad Raza. More so the thumb impression of co-accused Pritam Kumar were never obtained or sent to FSL to verify if the document Ex.PW3/C bears the signature of accused Pritam Kumar.
50. In view of the aforesaid discussion it does not show that the accused/ appellant at any point of time prepared any forged or fabricated document to commit the offence as all the documents placed on record by the prosecution were in his hand writing. The offence U/s 467/468/471 IPC is also not made out against accused/appellant. Therefore, in my considered view prosecution failed to establish the guilt of accused for the alleged offences beyond reasonable doubt and to my mind even the offence U/s 420 IPC is also not made out against accused/appellant since, there are no allegations against the accused/appellant of committing any dishonest act by which it caused any wrongful loss to the university or wrongful gain to himself as the accused/appellant was never given admission to the said course and may be it was only an attempt to commit an offence which also be prosecution failed to prove as none of the witnesses or the documents relied upon by the prosecution proved the same against the accused/appellant.
51.In view of the aforesaid discussion and considering the case laws of higher echelon of judiciary, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution had failed to bring home the guilt of appellant/accused for the alleged CA No.168/2025 PS Jamia Nagar FIR No.224/2010 Gulam Ahmad Raza Vs. State Page No.40 of 41 offence, beyond reasonable doubt. Resultantly, the impugned judgment dated 27.04.2023 and order on sentence dated 28.04.2025 passed against accused/ appellant by Ld. Trial Court, hereby set aside. The present Appeal stands allowed accordingly.
52.Appellant/ accused Gulam Ahmad Raza is hereby acquitted for all the offences. Fine deposited by the appellant at the time of sentence, before the Ld. Trial Court be released as per rules.
53.File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by SHEETAL SHEETAL CHAUDHARY Announced in the CHAUDHARY Date: 2025.11.17 Open Court Today 15:42:28 +0530 [Sheetal Chaudhary Pradhan] ASJ-02, South-East/Saket/Delhi 15.11.2025 (vk)
CA No.168/2025 PS Jamia Nagar FIR No.224/2010 Gulam Ahmad Raza Vs. State Page No.41 of 41